Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-15-1985 Public Hearing ;~ iJ z :ae,a AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD BY THE LA PORTE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON AUGUST 15, 1985, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY HALL, 604 WEST FAIRMONT,PARKWAY, LA PORTE, TEXAS, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING - REGARDING THE CITY OF LA PORTE PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING CALLED TO ORDER REVIEW OF THE ORDINANCE THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 3. CONSIDER SETTING MEETING DATE TO DISCUSS INPUT OF CITIZENS REGARDING THE PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE 4. ADJOURNMENT ~ ~ • MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE LA PORTE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 1985 1. At 7:00 p.m. Chairman Andy Wilson called the Public Hearing to order. Members of the Commission Present: Chairman Andy Wilson, Commissioners Bobby Blackwell, Charlie Doug Boyle, Janet Graves, Lola Phillips Members of the Commission Absent: Commissioner Karl Johnston City Staff Present: Director Community Development John Joerns, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Chief Building Official David Paulissen, City Engineer Bob Speake, Engineering Secretary Tina Anger. Others Present: Doyle Westergren, Don ford, Eddie Gray, Janet Gray, Rufus Smith, Helen McFerrin and other interested citizens. Those wishing to comment on the Proposed Zoning Ordinance were as follows: ~• DON FORD: He was concerned about the greenbelt proposals of personal properties. He felt that the present codes, building codes, set back that we have are more than sufficient rather than taking the use of property that the City doesn~t own or green areas particularly on commercial and some of these uses. He feels it is covered on the residential as far as the setback line. It doesn't really add that much to McDonalds or Burger King to have 5 or 10 ft. of greenbelt around it. He feels that some of these requirements are not necessary. EDDIE GRAY: He stated that his situation is working with the ordinance and trying to apply it to what he had been doing in La Porte and what he would like to keep doing is a matter of trying to get clarification and additional definitions and different things that we think are ~ ~ MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 15, 1985 PAGE 2 important. We do have some specific differences and we have gone through the ordinance and prepared a section by section list to be handed out to Planning and Zoning Commission. Janet will go through and-touch on the highlights. BOBBY BLACKWELL: Asked Mr. Gray if his study refers also to the greenbelt that Don Ford was talking about. EDDIE GRAY: "Yes, one of the questions that we had was a better definition of parkway corridors and greenway corridors; in the ordinance there is greenway corridors listed in the definition but reading that definition it is hard to know exactly what they're calling for and we have tried to be as specific as we could with our comments so that it might be helpful in trying to clarify some of them." JANET GRAY: The first thing - listed definitions that need clarifications Art. 1 Sect. 1 - 300 The Comprehensive Plan shows large amounts of public use and greenbelt park areas. We feel that the Comprehensive Plan can only affect the zoning. ordinance; at any rate the zoning ordinance can only be coursed according to the Comprehensive Plan in light of the funds that the city has to purchase the particular tract from an individual property owner; and further, that the Comprehensive Plan shows some areas to be designated residential, for example, in the areas which we feel are developed as light industrial and that' just one example where we feel the zoning ordinance and the enforcement of it might not necessarily be able to go along with the Comprehensive Plan as it set out. Page 2 - Comments on Art. 5 - Table B - Residential We feel that the heighth restriction needs to allow for a 3-story building that would have a hip roof and we are suggesting that the height would be approximately 45' but it would allow for homes to be built in the floodplain area on stilts, a 3 story apt. building with a hiproof, • • MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 15, 1985 PAGE 3 n so we're recommending that the height be raised to a greater height than is listed, also recommend that dwelling units per acre for single families be increased to 4.8 units per acre which is currently the dwelling units per acre that we are achieving in the Fairmont Park area. Were also recommending that the multi-family dwelling units per acre be increased to 27 dwelling units per acre. Sect. 5 - 701- Provides for additional setback along thoroughfares and we are suggesting that the current 10 ft. wide yard setback next to the public right-of-ways is sufficient and that the extra 5 feet not be residential area or that extra 10 feet in the commercial area is not necessary. Sect. 5-201 - We are dealing with the greenway corridor and the 20' land scaping setback along the corridor and we feel like this is a very important area that neds to be considered. We actually feel that the greenbelt area is a park land which the City of La Porte should allocate r park funds toward a purchase for manhours and if an extra 20 ft. of land scaped area is desired, that the City should purchase that landscaped area and maintain it. We feel like that is the most sufficient way for the City to keep proper maintenance for our areas that they would like to see as park lands and since it is park land, we feel like the City should allocate the funds and actually purchase it from the land owners. That same idea applies to the greenway or the land scaping setback areas along the park way corridors. We don't actually find a definition of parkway corridors in the zoning ordinance but if it is justifying a type of thoroughfare type situation, then the same thing would apply; the City actually purchases any landscaped thoroughfare and landscape their property and maintain that at the City's expense. Section 5-800 - Specifies that the zoning ~~ ~~ • MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 15, 1985 PAGE 4 ANDY WILSON: officer would determine the compatibility of the use as pertaining to the existing uses and also future uses surroung the property and this section doesn't say who would make a determination of compatibility; and then, what is compatibility; is it architectural scheme, color, use, or it is not fairly defined and then the other thing is future uses in an area. It is not possible to determine that, so we feel like that other sections in the zoning ordinance actually deal with what this section is trying to achieve, so we recommend that this section be stricken from the ordinance. Article 6 - 501 Same type of comment here under the commercial section in the commercial district as we do under the residential district pertaining to the landscape setback that this is actually park area along this greenway corridor and that the City should provide for it and maintain it. Sect. 6 - 600 - We feel that if in a storage area has ade additional 5 feet se stored prior to the necessary for storag they already have a the way around them. commercial zone, if a quate screening that these tbacks have things that are screening, chances are it is e yard type situations when complete screened fence all Article 8 - 400 This is the limitation on conditional use permits and we feel like that should be lengthened to somewhere between 3 - 5 year limitation. Also, we made that same comment in Sect. 10 - 201 ~~4. I believe one of those might pertain to the conditional use permits for prior public utility districts and the other one is just conditional use permits on anything. Ms. Gray asked if anyone had any questions. Suggested this information be moved to a second meeting to discuss it in length. He then asked • • MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 15, 1983 PAGE 5 if the commission had any comments or questions. BOBBY BLACKWELL: Stated that it was fairly obvious that the Gray's were against the greenbelt for the property reasons and I can understand that, but Mr. Blackwell wanted to know if they researched andy of the other cities that have nice greenbelts and ask do they take care of those things or does someone else maintain them? Ms. GRAY: Did not have an anser to that and said she had not read any recent zoning ordinances in any other cityies. Stated that her information was based on general holdings concerning park land and park areas in general. BOBBY BLACKWELL: Stated that he knew the city did not maintain that little greenbelt area and that it was not feasible at all to be 5 ft. all around this country or 10 ft. on each side and I disagree constructively that it doesn't make a place of business look better, because it sure does. It makes them look more invitable. EDDIE GRAY: I completely agree with you that it is difficult r and real expensive to maintain these narrow strips all around and that's really our objective. The Plan calls for the green way corridors and I have asked about how wide they are and what's proposed and so far we haven't gotten any definition on that but their on the General Comprehensive Plan and whatever width is needed for the City to connect the different parks and make bike trails and do that, I think that if the city is calling for adding 20 more ft. on either side of it to be land scaped and maintained by the property owner, that you cannot use it for anything else, cannot park on it or use it for anything so I think that if the city needs 40 more feet of greenbelt, whatever they decide they need, they should buy it and put it into the same program that they have otherwise. r~ ~J MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING • AUGUST 15, 1985 PAGE 6 BOBBY BLACKWELL: Could you refer back to that for me personally what section exactly you are talking about? Where we're asking for another 20 ft? EDDIE GRAY: SECTION 3, 5-201 - SEC. 6-501 BOBBY: Let's look at that now. Section 6-501 - EDDIE GRAY: For instance, where they are showing the greenway corridor along the Big Island Slough, and also along the big drainage ditch that runs beside the park at Fairmont Park, if this had been in effect at the time that we did that, we would have to set aside an additional 20' on either side of the drainage area and then the people that back up to that drainage ditch, their lot would stop 20' short of it and they would have a fence, then they would be 20' behind the fence. Either the city would have to maintain it, or I don't think the people living there would maintain a 20' space behind their back fence. As I understand the proposed ordinance in these greenway corridors, the city would be purchasing or either trying to use existing right-of-ways as much as possible. BOBBY: Just trying to use existing right-of-ways, we don't want to purchase anything. EDDIE: O.K. but there are a few places that there aren't existing right-of-ways so they've got some green on the map; but even the 80~ that is alreadyexisting right-of-way so why should people that own property along that existing right-of-way have to get another 20' on either side of it, landscape it and maintain it just to make the greenbelt that much wider. BOBBY: I understand that. ANDY: Any more questions? • ~ ~ MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING • AUGUST 15, 1985 PAGE 7 Chairman Andy Wilson asked for Doyle Westergren to come forth and address the Commission. Mr. Westergren indicated that he only had a couple of questions. He said that he had obtained a copy of the ordinance from the City a couple of weeks prior, and to this point, have there been any changes made, or does it still remain as it stands? Chairman Wilson explained that it's been his understanding in communicating with the staff that the document we're working with, the terms of the text misinterpretation is the same document we were working with over a year ago and it is part of the Comprehensive Plan and this document that was put up here at City Hall for the public to come and review and I believe there is a copy available at the public library, and we've discussed and debated this for sometime. John Armstrong went on to say that the document that's being looked at is virtually identical to the one in the Comprehensive Plan. The only changes that have been made are those that correlate the zoning ordinance into the text of the recently passed development ordinance which replaced a subdivision ordinance that was in existence at the time that this Comprehensive Plan ordinance was drafted. It is just to merry it up to the way that the facts actually exist today to remain the subdivision ordinance and development ordinance, but that's essentially the only change. Mr. Westergren understood that basically what he's reading in the Master Plan Ordinance is identical. He also wanted to know how to go about obtaining a copy of the ordinance that the City is working on? Chairman Andy Wilson indicated that the City Secretary of the City of La Porte has been the person that we've directed everyone to for about the last six. or eight months. Mr. Westergren indicated that he was at La Porte and got this Comprehensive Plan and was under the impression that he was reading the real thing. He indicated that he could not follow some of the things that were said because he didn't believe the numbers on the pages fit. Mr Westergren wanted to know if that was possible. • ~ ~ MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 15, 1985 • PAGE 8 Chairman Wilson, along with Lindsay Pfeiffer, City Councilman, said th~the pagenation on~tte of those pages maybe a little different from the working document that we're working with and if commission doesn't have any objections, he would request that a copy of the document that we're working with which is no different from the text that was in the Master Plan that was produced over a year ago that has the same information in it be placed in the hands of the City Secretary and then you could get a copy of that where the pages merry up and the section numbers so that if you wanted to reference a specific item that had been brought out earlier tonite,that you could be able to do that. He then asked if the Commission had any objections to that. That will stand as a rule. Chairman Wilson then called for the next person on the agenda, Mr. Rufus Smith who indicated that he was in about the same position as Mr. Westergren. He said he didn't know what's what, but he knew what he was in favor of in the Master Plan but he didn't know how that meshes with this particular ordinance. He said that perhaps he should defer to Mrs. Sullivan and let her speak first and then he would know what he wanted to say. He asked if he could do that. Chairman Wilson indicated that he may do this and he asked Mrs. Sullivan to approach the commission and place Mr. Smith's name after Mrs. Sullivan. Chairman Wilson told Mrs. Sullivan that Mr. Smith had deferred to her to go ahead and approach the Commission but Mrs. Sullivan did not want to speak to the Commission. Chairman Wilson then deferred to Mrs. Helen Mc Pherin. Chairman Wilson then asked Mr. Smith if he cared to address the Commission. Mr. Smith began by saying that without knowing just where it fits in this proposed ordinance, he would like to say that he feels that a very important and significant part of the Master Plan involves the possible increasing of density on bay front blocks. This is one of the biggest assets that La Porte has is the view of the water, the ships coming up the ship channel and races of Houston Yacht Club. For a long time now, he was in suppport of the people who were fortunate enough to own homes right of the water front, silent beach stream, east end of town and all along we're able to enjoy that. I think that there are many, many others. This is the closest part of staying to Houston, closest big water to Houston so you • ~• .^ MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 15, 1985 • PAGE 9 could presumably have a 20-story apartment, condominium out on the shores of the bay on Rosco Street and a couple of other block and I am in favor of that wherever it fits into the new ordinance. Chairman Wilson then asked Mrs. Sullivan to address the commission if she were ready. Mrs. Sullivan primary concern was R-3 and the present zoning ordinance. She was mainly concerned with the fact that the property values be protected in the older part of La Porte. She was also concerned about the PUDs which she said there were no examples to see what they looked like and she felt they should not be put in already existing R1. Chairman Wilson then called Mrs. Mc Pherin to address the Commission, but before she spoke, Commissioner Blackwell felt that an explanation should be made to Mrs. Sullivan about how the R3's were not going to be put in with the R1 and R2's area. Mrs. Helen Mc Pherin addressed the Commission and said that her concern was that shared by Mrs. Sullivan because both their residents were designated as an R-3. She went on to say that she agreed with Mr. Gray in that she doesn't approve of the green areas because of the fact that she lives in one of the oldest sections of town and the Harris County Flood Control has an easement and they are responsible for keeping that area dean and that's probably the reason it was designated as recreational. She said they had already had people camping in the yard because they think it's already a recreational area and she agrees with Mr. Gray that recreational areas, bike trails, jogging trails do not need to be put in peoples back yards. She also requested a map of the existing pipes that have dangerous gases and materials and in the future planning to please not allow these pipes in residential areas. She emphasized the need to plan for safety for La Porteans. Chairman Wilson asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. Mr. Gray felt that we should take the section on parks and greenways and see what's proposed and see how that will be applied to property owners and how they would be maintained. He also commended the La Porte Staff on helping people to try and understand the ordinance. ~~ ~ MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 15, 1985 • PAGE 10 Chairman Wilson pointed out that the law prohibited us from turning up what, if anything that we might have ideas on other than what the public input was this evening and he thinks that's what was so appropriate in having your documents so well prepared for the Commission to review and if we were not to vote this thing out tonite, report it to Council at a subsequent meeting if we were to do that, allow us also to take the document we have in front of us and the notes prepared by the citizens and mail those two together, and any questions we might have on our mind, to discuss among ourselves at the next meeting to be able to question that and make whatever recommendations we might have to Council. Chairman Wilson introduced those of staff who had worked on this for the last year: John Joerns, Director Community Development David Paulissen,Chief Building Official Bob Speake, City Engineer Chairman Wilson commended the staff and with no objections, he declared the Public Hearing closed. Chairman Andy Wilson entertained suspension of Agenda for purpose of electing Vice Chairman, not on the agenda, but discussed for several months that if Andy were absent, someone is needed to fill in and he suggested Bobby Blackwell to fill t}~at position. Motion was made by Charlie Doug Boyle. There were no objections, the motion carried. Position of Secretary was discussed. Motion was made by Charlie Doug Boyle suggesting Janet Graves be made the Secretary. Motion Carried. Mr. Boyle wanted to set a meeting for August 29, for input received from public referencing zoning ordinance. Mrs. Janet Graves seconded. Chairman Wilson set August 29 for discussion of input from public hearing. Charlie Doug Boyle made motion for, Lola Phillips seconded. Motion carried. • • C~ MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 15, 1985 PAGE 11 ~• There being no further business, the meeting was duly adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Gwen Vann Assistant City Secretary Passed and approved this the dat if 1985 Andy Wilson, Chairman • age ~ ~~; ~.~,. i MEMORANDUM TO: Andy Wilson, Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission, CLP FROM: David A. Paulissen, Zoning Administrator, CLP John Joerns, Director of Community Development, CLP John D. Armstrong, Assistant City Attorney, CLP RE: Proposed Zoning Ordinance, Analysis of Public Hearing Comments DATE: August 29, 1985 Please recall that the Planning & Zoning Commission, CLP held a public hearing on the proposed new Zoning Ordinance for the City of LaPorte on the 15th day of August, 1985. At this public hearing, extensive citizen input on the proposed Ordinance was obtained. After the close of the public hearing, the Planning & Zoning Commission directed staff to identify and review the public comment received on the proposed Ordinance, and present it to the Commission in a format, that relates each particular citizen comment to the section of the Ordinance effected by the citizen comment, together with a staff analysis of the citizen comment in relationship to the proposed Zoning Ordinance, and in relationship to the Comprehensive Plan as adopted by the Planning & Zoning Commission of the pity of LaPorte. This letter contains the review of the citizen input and the staff analysis of the citizen input in relationship to the proposed Ordinance and the comprehensiv e Plan that was requested by the Planning & Zoning Commission. The writers have spent extensive time reviewing the citizen input, and placing the citizen input into an organizational format that clearly relates to the proposed Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Each citizen comment will be identif ied, followed by a short staff impact analysis of the comment in relationship to the Ordinance sections effected by the citizen comment, followed again by a staff analysis of the proposed Ordinance section and the citizen comment in relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff makes no clear recommendations regarding acceptance or rejection Chairman Wilson and~~mbers of the Commission City of LaPorte Page 2• ` of any particular citizen comment that recommends a change in the proposed Ordinance, but rather would commend to the attention of the • Commission the requirement that the proposed Ordinance, together with any changes that the Planning & Zoning Commission might care to make in the proposed Ordinance be clearly and identifiably related to the Comprehensive Plan. Citizen comments are not necessarily placed in the order received by the Commission, but are reorganized for purposes of clarity. Relatively minor issues are tackled first, with major policy decisions being reserved to the end of this presen- tation. What follows, then, is the staff analysis of the citizen input received at Planning & Zoning Commission's public hearing held on August 15, 1985: 1) Definition of Commercial Motor Vehicle and Light Truck: Comment was received which indicated that both definitions should include a phrase that a commercial motor vehicle or a light truck is one which is larger than one ton. Changing the definition would allow the typical residentially owned and based welding trucks to be parked in residential areas without screening or other impact abatement. These trucks are usually one ton rated trucks that don't cause permanent pavement damage. On the other hand the one ton truck is usually cumbersome and aesthetically unpleasing. They may be difficult to keep on .site due to the size. Sometimes corner lot truck owners desire additional curb cuts off of major arterials. It should also be noted that some hazards might exist to children from these trucks. Also, the City Thoroughfare Plan indicates as an objective that truck traffic should be limited to designated truck routes. Defining commercial motor vehicles and light trucks to include one ton vehicles means that parking of these one ton vehicles would be permitted in residential areas. ANALYSIS: The comprehensive Plan includes no specific prohibi- tion against these trucks in residential areas and it would seem that the truck traffic contemplated by the thoroughfare plan to be restricted to truck routes does not specif ically include one ton vehicles. Therefore, changing the definitions to include one ton vehicles would not frustrate the intent of the comprehensive Plan. 2) Fence: Citizen comment indicated that this definition should include wrought iron fences or acceptable steel mesh fences. The definition of fence relates specifically to decorative or security fences placed on residential, commercial, light Chairman Wilson and ~mbers of the Commission . City of LaPorte Page 3 industrial, and industrial properties. For these purposes, • staff sees no problem with including wrought iron fences within the definition. However, inclusion of "acceptable steel mesh fences" within the definition would seem to permit ambiguity and an inconsistent standard for enforcement which would allow discretion for acceptable fences to be placed on City staff. ANALYSIS: Amend the definition to include wrought iron fences, but leave out "acceptable steel mesh fences" . It should be noted that staff sees no impact based upon the goals set forth in the comprehensive Plan. 3) Height: Citizen comment indicated that the definition should include a permissible height of forty-five (45) feet from grade. Since heights are already regulated within the body of the Ordinance, in Section 5-700 Table B (Residential), Section 6-500 Table B (Commercial) ,and Section 7-600 Tabl e B (Industrial) inclusion of regulatory material in the definition section of the Ordinance would be inappropriate. ANALYSIS: Leave this section of the Ordinance unchanged. 4) Ranch Trailer: Citizen comment indicated that a definition of ranch trailer • was not included in the proposed Ordinance. Inclusion of a definition of ranch trailer would allow ranch trailers to be parked as an accessory use in residential zones. Allowing ranch trailers to be parked in residential zones is important, particularly in the Lomax area, and should be permitted under the current ordinance. Allowing ranch trailers to be parked in the Lomax area would be in furtherance of the Comprehensive Plan objective of allowing continuance of large lot rural residential uses in the Lomax area. Therefore, the definition should be included, and should be consistent with the definition currently utilized in the City's truck route ordinance. ANALYSIS: Include the definition consistent with the City's truck route ordinance. 5) Loading Berth Citizen comment indicates that there is a need in the Ordinance for a definition of loading berth. Again, inclusion of this definition neither furthers nor detracts from the goal of the Comprehensive Plan, and it is deemed by staff that inclusion of a definition aids in the clarity and consistency of the Ordinance from an enforcement standpoint. • Chairman Wilson and~.mbers of Commission City of LaPorte Page 4 . ANALYSIS: Include a definition of loading berth, consistent with the def inition currently found in Ordinance 780. 6) Section 2-703: • Citizen comment indicates that this section which refers to the determination of zoning district boundaries, is difficult to understand and apply. Further citizen comment indicates it is not applicable to large tracts under single ownership which have several zoning districts within the property boundary line. It appears that this section as written would have clear and effective application on small (less than 100 feet in width) tracts of land. However, large tracts might present a problem in that large areas of land might be effectively rezoned based upon the application of this ordinance .section, and contrary to the intent of the Planners, the City Planning Commission, and City Council. As opposed to changing the use of certain property due to inclusion of that property within different district boundary lines, City staff would recommend that the current decision rule as applied in Ordinance 780- Section 9105 continue to be applied. The Current Ordinance section indicates that in the case of a district boundary line dividing a property into two parts, the district boundary lines shall be construed to be the property line nearest the district boundary line as shown. By maintaining this decision rule, the intent of the Comprehensive Plan is not frustrated and a boundary line determination system is maintained that the staff, the Commission, and local developers are comfortable with. ANALYSIS: Chang e Section 2-703 of the proposed Ordinance to language contained in Section 9-105 of current Ordinance 780. 7) Section 2-800: Citizen comment indicates that this section, which establishes the land use districts under the proposed Ordinance in the City of LaPorte, indicate, based upon "restrictions", which uses are more restrictive and which are less restrictive. It should be noted that the proposed Ordinance, unlik e our current zoning Ordinance, does not provide for the inclusion of residential uses in commercial or industrial districts, or commercial uses in industrial districts, unless said residential, commercial, or light industrial uses are specifically allowed within a particular district as a permitted, conditional, or accessory use as listed in the SIC Tables for each particular zoning classification. The proposed Ordinance, through the use of the SIC Codes, clearly outlines which uses are permitted, • Chairman Wilson and ~nbers of the Commission • pity of LaPorte Page 5 conditional, or accessory within each particular district. The terms "more restrictive" or "less restrictive" do not apply in the proposed zoning Ordinance, and are not a useful means by which to study the proposed zoning Ordinance. By way of further explanation, it should be noted that a reference to "more restrictive", or "less restrictive", was contained in Section 2-703. In the previous section, staff indicated, consistent with the philosophy of the proposed zoning ordinance, that this reference to "more restrictive", or "less restrictive", be removed. Therefore, if the previous analysis is followed, reference to "more restrictive", or less restrictive", is moot, and should not be attempted. ANALYSIS: Make no change in Section 2-800 of the proposed zoning Ordinance. 8) Secton 4-103: Citizen comment indicates that this section, which applies to setbacks in the case of through lots, does not state whether the minimum setback of twenty (20) feet applies to the rear yard or the front yard. Again, this is a matter of administration and has little impact upon objectives as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, except for the general observation that all required yard setbacks improve the safety and appearance of the City. It should be noted that the requirement covered in Section 4-103 is substantially similar to our current • requirement for setbacks on double fronted lots as contained in Section 10-400 of Ordinance 780. ANALYSIS: Clarify according to the comment, and designate -that the minimum rear setback shall be twenty (20) feet in the case of a through lot in a residential district. 9) Section 4-104: Citizen comment indicates that this section should be revised to effectively remove setbacks in the case of commercial developments. Again, it should be noted that setbacks in residential, commercial, and other developments do generally further the goals of aesthetics and particulary safety as set forth within the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission has already required commercial setbacks of twenty (20) feet in the recently passed Development Ordinance. ANALYSIS: In furtherance of the objectives set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, it is recommended that there he no change to this section. 10) Secton 5-404 (2)(a)(2): Citizen comment indicates that this section, which pertains the proximity of R3 structures from a public or private street • Chairman Wilson and embers of the Commission ~ . City of LaPorte Page 6 should be increased to correspond with the fire code requirement that any residential buildings may be located within five hundred (500) feet from a fire hydrant as the fire hose would • lay. It should be noted that the requirement mentioned in the citizen comment pertains to single family dwellings and Section 5-404 (2)(a)(2) concerns itself with the distance that multi- family developments are located from a public or a private street. The current City of LaPorte fire code treats apartment and other multi-family dwelling units as commercial, since they are located in commercial zones under the current zoning Ordinance. This current .fire code requirement states that commercial structures are to be located within 300 feet of a fire hydrant as the hose would lay. Section 5-404 (2)(a)(2) of the proposed zoning Ordinance does not address itself to fire hydrant placement but rather addresses the distance that a multi-family structure should be located from a public or private street. ANALYSIS: Both the distance of multi-family dwelling units from a public or private street and the distance of said structures from fire hydrants (as the hose would lay) are valid locational criteria. For purposes of all emergency vehicular access to said structures, 300 feet would seem to be a reasonable distance, based upon current fire code practise and based upon the requirement of 200 feet contained in the proposed Ordinance locational criteria requirements. 11) Section 5-404 (2)(a)(5): Citizen comment indicates that the maximum length of a cul-de- sac street should correspond with the length allowed by the Federal Housing Administration and may be permitted as long as the street has the standard fire hydrant spacing as required by the fire department. Note that this section applies only to private streets and multi-family developments. The maximum length of 300 feet is measured to the nearest right-of-way line of the intersecting public or private street. This standard is based on the reasoning that as dead-end length increases, general circulation becomes more indirect, the number of vehicles and traffic activity increase, emergency vehicular access becomes more difficult and liable to misdirection, increased problems occur for refuse collection, and dead-end utilities would become a problem unless mitigated by proper planning. ANALYSIS: Therefore, it is recommended that this section of the Ordinance be left unchanged. 12) Section 5-501 Citizen comment indicates that other residential and supporting uses may be permitted within the manufactured housing district but that the supporting uses which are permitted are not defined. • Chairman Wilson and ~inbers of the Commission i - pity of LaPorte Page 7 Accessory, permissable, and conditional uses allowed in the MH and all residential districts may be found in Section 5-600, Table A (Residential) of the Ordinance. This is an exclusive and exhaustive list. ANALYSIS: Since supporting uses which are permitted in the MH district are defined, no change would be recommended based upon the comment. 13) Section 5-600: Citizen comment indicates that a definition of single family dwelling special lot is needed. Section 5-600 Table A (Resi- dential) specifies which uses are liable in the various resi- dential districts, and it should be noted that single family dwelling special lot is a use permitted in R-2, R-3, and MH zones. However, it is not defined in the definitional section of the Ordinance. A single family dwelling special lot is intended to mean any single family dwelling located on a lot of less than 6,000 square feet. Attention to Section 5-700 Table B (Residential) will show that the miminum proposed lot area for a single family dwelling special lot is 4,500 square feet. In our current Ordinance, provision is made for down sized homes, but it is necessary that they be located on the same minimum lot size that regular single family detached dwelling units are located on. This Ordinance makes special reference to down size lots in both the case of a single family • dwelling special lot and single family dwelling zero lot line. ANALYSIS: Include a definition of single family dwelling special lot to mean a single family dwelling unit on a lot area -of less than 6,000 square feet but greater than 4,500 square feet. 14) Section 5-700, Table B (Residential): This table deals with lot areas, setbacks, heights, and lot coverages as well as density in a residential district (including manufactured housing). Citizen comment on this section is pervasive. Each issue addressed by the citizen comment will be analyzed separately. First, citizen comment indicates that the maximum height permissable on a residential dwelling unit should be increased to forty-five (45) feet from the currently proposed thirty-five (35) feet for all residential uses. The Comprehensive Plan does not detail particulars such as height requirements, but does provide a residential objective of relative uniformity of particular heights within districts (such as R1 as opposed to R2, etc.) . Current requirements for height in single family detached dwelling units are two stories above standard grades which would enable a house to be placed on piers in the case of a home built in the flood plain, which • Chairman Wilson and `,tubers of the Commission City of LaPorte Page ~ is a problem prevalent in the LaPorte area. The citizen comment indicates that increasing maximum height restrictions on single family detached dwellings to forty-five (45) feet from thirty- • five (35) would allow homes to b e built on stilts, and also would allow homes to have the grade buildup of a brick facade on the grading. Thirty-five (35) feet of height should allow for standard two story homes built on stilts, particularly when taking into account the fact that height, as defined, in this Ordinance, takes the average of the roof height above grade, as opposed to measuring from the peak of the roof to grade to obtain your height figure. Therefore dwelling units could actually be in excess of thirty-five (35) feet from the peak of the roof to grade, but would not be measured as such under standard code procedures in this Ordinance. In addition, it should be noted that our proposed flood zone Ordinance in all cases, either maintains current flood zone standards, or actually decreases flood zone requirements. Increase of a residential permissable height in a single family detached dwelling unit district would possibly provide for a lack of uniformity among adjoining homes in a particular neighborhood. On the other hand, there would be no impact regarding the ability of emergency equipment to service a forty-five (45) foot home, and in any case forty-five (45) feet as a permissabl e height for duplexes, townhouses, or multiple family dwelling units would not seem be inappropriate. ANALYSIS: Leave the height restriction at thirty-five (35) feet for single family detached, and discuss the need to in- • crease the height limitation to forty-five (45) feet for dup- lexes, townhouses, quadraplexes, and multiple family dwelling units according to citizen comment. The next citizen comment on Table R relates to density for single family detached dwelling units. Citizen comment indicates that density should be increased from 4.5 dwelling units per acre to 4.8 dwelling units per acre. .Also, in multiple family dwelling units citizen comment indicates that the density should be increased from the currently proposed 25.6 dwelling units per acre to 27 dwelling units per acre, which is the current requirement under Ordinance 780. The subject of resi- dential density received exhaustive coverage and debate by the Steering Committee. Review of the Citizen Committee Report, tog ether with pertinent sections of the Comprehensive Plan, reveal mixed ideas regarding density figures. The issue is of major importance when correlated to LaPorte's long term popula- tion projections, the ability of the City to provide services for a fixed number of population, and overall crowding and urban density within a limited geographic area. However, the changes are minor and would materially impact the City's ability Chairman Wilson and ~nbers of the Commission • La Porte, Texas Page 9 to provide services in the long run. Increased density also means increased tax revenues, increased parkland dedication, and a greater investment return to the developer. Taking either set of density figures (out of those proposed in the Ordinance, or those proposed in the citizen comment), the application of the Development Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and other Ordinances to any developments will assure adequate open space, and parkland for residents by developments within the City of La Porte. It should also be noted that the parti- cular density per acre figures for the various residential uses correlate directly to the yard sizing and coverage require- ments expressed in Section 5-700. However, the changes sugges- ted are minor and it would seem that even the new proposed density figures would corrulate with the yard sizing and cover- age requirements contained„ within the current Ordinance. ANALYSIS: Even though the Steering Committee had mixed feelings regarding the particular density and lot coverage requirements in Section 5-700, Table B (Residential), it should be pointed out that the lot area, setback, density, and lot coverage requirements as expressed in Section 5-700, Table B (Residential) are premised upon the Comprehensive Plan, and were arrived at after exhaustive discussion by the Steering Committee. The Planning & Zoning Commission is free to look at these require- ments and discuss them from the Steering Committee's, Citizen's, and the Developer's perspective, however the numbers as presented in Table B (Residential) should be given deference based upon • the exhaustive review that had been performed by the Steering Committee. However, 4.8 dwelling units per acre density for single family detached, and 27 dwelling units per acre density for multi-family dwellings are also clearly within acceptable ;density perimeters for density within the respective districts as set forth in the land use plan, and a change to the suggested figures should not negatitively impact the Comprehensive Plan or frustrate its intent. 15) Section 5-800 C: Citizen comment indicates that this section which provides that architectural appearance and functional plan of buildings that are permitted by conditional use permit procedures should be consistent with existing buildings and the residential area in which they are located is overly broad and "impossible to enforce in regard to all property owners". Ordinarily, a section regarding the architectural appearance and functional compatibility of a particular proposed use to the surrounding area would be too subjective and difficult to enforce fairly. However, Section 5-800 deals with special conditional use performance standards in residential neighborhoods. This means that any use so effected would be in the conditional use permit CJ Chairman Wilson and~~mbers of the Commission City of LaPorte Page 10 . procedure, and particularly would deal with residential PUD's, or manufactured housing parks within residential neighborhoods, or MH districts, respectively. Since the conditional use permit procedure specifically deals with a case by case approval of a project, within the guidelines as established in the Ordinance, it would seem that a subjective compatability standard is appro- priate, particularly since only uses that would have a major impact on the surrounding neighborhoods are subj ected to the Conditional Use Permit procedure. ANALYSIS: Leave this section as is. 16) Section 6-500: Citizen comment indicates that the a maximum height in Neighbor- hood Commercial districts should be increased to 45 feet from the presently proposed 35 feet. The proposed change of 35 feet to 45 feet would not adversely effect any use established in the Comprehensive plan, and it would not deter the ability of the City to provide fire protection to neighborhood commercial uses. Increasing the height from 35 feet to 45 feet would bring Neighborhood Commercial district height requirements into line with General Commercial district height requirements and multi-family Residential district height requirements. ANALYSIS: Change the height requirment in neighborhood commer- cial from 35 feet to 45 feet. 17) Section 6-600: Citizen comment indicates that glass covered lights should be allowed without being subject to having a sourcehooded or directed away from a right-of-way or residence. The intent of this section is to prevent lighting from causing a traffic hazard to right-of-ways and prevent excessive glare into a residence. This proposed change would allow the use of a typi- cal mercury vapor yard light. On the other hand, this type of un-hooded lighting can cause excessive glare to a residence. Vapor lighting is usually not directionally intense enough to cause traffic hazards except in the case of heights of less than 12 feet. ANALYSIS: Mercury vapor lights can be hooded or screened to prevent the light source from being visable from a right-of-way or residence. This requirement should remain as written as there is some liability involved to the City with the removal of this requirment. 18) Section 6/600 (B)5: Citizen comment indicates that the additional five foot set back required behind the screening fence for every foot of height of • Chairman Wilson and tiers of the Commission ' City of LaPorte ~ Page 11 stored material above that fence should be deleted. This . requirement was intended to screen stored materials from rights- of-way and public view. Such screening would prevent the visa- bility of large unsightly stored items. On the other hand, it makes it increasingly difficult for commercial contractors to store large equipment such as cranes, back-hoes, etc. and have them screened effectively. It is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan to improve the overall image and appearance of the community. The screening and setback requirements in this section further that objective. ANALYSIS: Planning and Zonin goals of the comprehensive plan aspects of the application of therefrom. • 19) Section 8-200: g should carefully consider the for screening versus the pratical this section and make a decision Citizen comment indicates that clarification is necessary on which rules apply to a P. U. D. District and which rules apply to a P. U. D. developed within a residential, commercial or industrial district. Due to the complexity of planned unit developments in general, the regulations concerning planned unit development with in the ordinance are quite detailed and specific. Carefull study is indicated in order to ascertain the differences between which rules apply to a P. U. D. District and which rules apply a P. U. D. within a residential, commercial or industrial distri- ction. In Section 8-200, It is indicated that in land zone P. U. D. on the zoning map, all uses that are permitted in the residential, commercial, and industrial districts are permitted in that P. U. D. zone. This is different from material covered in Article" 10, which relates to a Planned unit development within a residential, commercial or industrial district in which the allowable use would be limited to the allowable uses within the particular residential, commercial, or industrial district. 20) Section 8-402 (8): Citizen comment indicates that this section needs to state the dwelling unit per acre requirments for a P. U. D. District. The Section in this case is clear that dwelling unit density requirements within a P. U. D. Zone for each particular use are to be in general complaince with the applicable district provi- sions. Therefore, density for the residential portion of the P. U. D. or commercial portion of a P. U. D. etc. shall be identical to the residential density in a regular residential district, or a commercial density in a commercial district. Provided, however that in Section 10-103 of the Zoning Ordinance, a density bonus is allowed and enables developers in either a Chairman Wilson and`;mbers of the Commisssion~ City of LaPorte Page 12' P. U. D. Zone or developing a planned-unit development within a particular zone to increase their densities according to the • terms of the ordinance. 21) Section 8-402 (10): Citizen comment indicates that the requirement that the planned unit development be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan be deleted. As noted above, there is a legal requirement that all zoning be pursuant to and based upon a Comprehensive Plan. This is particularly true in the case of a planned unit development in that the particular uses proposed in the planned development unit are proposed by the developer and are not set forth in concrete like permitted uses within a particular zone. If this section would be deleted, the legal basis for inclusion of Planned Unit Developments within the zoning ordinance would fail and planned unit developments would not be available for developers in the community. ANALYSIS: Keep this requirement in the ordinance. 22) Section 8-403: Citizen imput indicates that the 12 month limitation on conditional use permits is too short and should be lengthened to 3 to 5 years. The intent in the Comprehensive Plan is that this require- ment allow the city to maintain at least minimal control of • growth without an open ended blanket approval. This 12 month period is for conditional use permits only. The conditional use is a use within a zone that may have substantial impact on the zone where ,it is located. It is usually the most intense use allowed within a zone. These permits require planning and zoning and council approval. This limitation allows time for development but is limited to 12 months with an additional 12 months when an extension is granted. The time period is limited in case the conditions of the surrounding area change in a manner that would effect the P. U. D. and its respective conditinal use permit. Three to five years allows too much time for the rest of the area to change. Structures built in that period could have a substantial impact on the P. U. D. and the City as a whole. It should be further noted that there has been a major problem in the past for the planning and zoning commission and City Council to approve re-zoning on a particular piece of property within the city based upon a particular proposed use, only to find that the propsed use does not take place for whatever reason, but the end result being an excessive amount of vacant land lying within the City without effective zoning control, and without develop- ment. By placing an automatic termination on a conditional use permit, these high-impact uses will not be allowed to continue indefinitely, but rather will force the developer to keep in • Chairman Wilson and ~mbers of the Commission City of LaPorte Page 13 constant touch with. the City Staff, the Planning and Zoning • Commission and City Council to monitor the progress of the deve- lopment and the developer's desire to see the development through to completion. Any developer who is serious about developing property will find it to be in his or her economic interest to proceed with the completion of that development as quickly as possible, particularly in cases where property is lying vacant and developers are paying an interim construction financing loan. Finally, the proposed Zoning Ordinance outlines specific standards that must be met in order for a developer to obtain a conditional use permit on a particular piece of property. If the standards are met by the developer, the developer is in compliance with the ordinance and the developer should be entitled to obtain a conditional use permit, and should also be entitled to obtain extensions and reapproval of the conditional use permit by the planning and zoning commission and city Council . Add i- tional effort is required by this ordinance on the part of the developer to stay in constant contact with staff in one year increments, but this would not seem to be an unreasonable require- ment in place of the alternative of letting land lie vacant with the conditional use permit for an indefinite period of time, and without Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council control of the continued changing use surrounding the propety. ANALYSIS: Leave this section as is. • 23) Section 8-404 (B): Citizen comment indicates that a minor change in a major or minor development site plan should not require resubmission of a new general plan. This is in the Ordinance section that provides and indicates that if a developer's plans change, the developer should notify City staff of the change by the filing of a new General Plan. Please recall that in the Development Ordinance that was recently passed, the General Plan deals with developments that are constructed in stages. Thus a change in the order in which the stages are constructed, or a change in the type of construction that would be utilized within a particular stage, requires under the terms of the Development Ordinance, a new General plan filing. Section 8 404(B) correlates the approval procedure for a P. U. D. within a Planned Unit Development District with the Development Ordinance submission requirements. In order fora developer to build a P. U. D. , both the Development Ordinance requirements and the Zoning Ordinance requirements must be met. In the case of "minor change" in a Major or Minor Development Site Plan, resubmission requirements for a new General plan or a Major or Minor Development Site Plan is covered by the terms of the Development Ordinance, with the zoning ordinance reference being to the particulars contained within the Development Ord finance. • Chairman Wilson an embers of the Commission City of LaPorte ~ Page 14 ANALYSIS: Do not change this section, but perhaps make a clear reference to the Development Ordinance sections that apply. 24) Section 10-101 (4): Citizen comment indicates that this section, which again deals with construction schedules for multistage planned unit develop- ments should be approximate only and used as a general guideline, as opposed to being a concrete start and end date. The intent of the section is to provide only approximate starting dates and completion dates, and to the extent that the section mandates definite starting and completion dates of construction, the wording should be changed to give general guideline dates. ANALYSIS: In the last sentence of Section 10-101(4), the word "approximate" should be inserted before starting date and comple- tion date- of the complete development plan. 25) Section 10-101 6(C): Citizen comment indicates that the term "sufficient amount of usuable open space" in this section is somewhat vague. This is the section that outlines the basic requirements that a P. U. D. must meet in order to gain its conditional use permit. As with other sections in the P. U. D. area the term "sufficient" is used to allow the developer to have increased flexibility which is one of the basic advantag es in developing a P. U. D. Note that in other areas of this section the quote is made that the P. U. D. should be in substantial complaince with the regulation of the uses that will be developed within the parameters of the P. U. D. The intent of the Plan was that sufficient in this usage should correlate with the open space requirements for the particular uses that will be developed within the planned unit development. This section is nonspecif is in order to allow flexability to the developer in the design of a planned unit development. Any amendment to this section that would define "sufficient amount of open space" would remove flexibility from the planned unit development procedures. ANALYSIS: Leave this section this section that relates the general compliance with the elsewhere in the ordinance. as is or add a qualification to term "sufficient open space" to open space requirements outlined 26) Section 10-102 (e) Citizen comment indiates that there is no need for the review of deed restrictions by the City Attorney to insure that they comply with F. H. A. Deed Restrictions. The review of these deed restrictions by the City Attorney is needed to insure compliance with both the F. H. A. Requirements and deed restriction require- ments as they may appear elsewhere in this document. As deed • • • Chairman Wilson and ~nbers of the Commission City of LaPorte Page 15 restrictions are legal documents required by th City of La Porte, the City Attorney must review for complaince with state and other pertinent laws and standards, and also to ensure that the City of La Porte is not liable for inappropriate material that may b e contained within these deed restrictions. ANALYSIS: Leave this section as written. 27) Section 10-103: Citizen comment indicates that the heading of this subsection should indicate whether or not it pertains to planned development units within P. U. D. districts or planned unit developments contained within a particular district. The heading of the entire section 10-100 series within the ordinance pertains to planned unit development procedures which would indicate that it references to either planned unit developments within the P. U. D. Districts or planned unit development contained within a particular district. ANALYSIS: For purposes of clarity, add the title material requested. 28) Section 10-104: Citizen comment indicates that the heading of this section should indicate that it pertains to P. U. D.'s. • ANALYSIS: See comment on 27 supra. 29) Section 10-201 (4): Citizen comment again indicates that the one year limitation on conditional use permit should be extended to a three to five year period. ANALYSIS: See discussion of item No. 22 above. 30) Section 10-302 (7): Citizen comment indicates that this section, which prohibits accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensors from being located in required sideyards should be amended to allow air conditioning/cooling structures and condensers within said required side yards. This section was intended to prevent noise producing equipment from being located adjacent to the neighbor's bedroom window. This provision could help relieve noise pollution and the some what unsightly units from the sid e yards. Mod ern technology has, however, resulted in a much quieter unit that is usually not offensive to the neighbors. It should also be noted that some floorplans of Chairman Wilsom and embers of the Commission City of LaPorte ` ~ Page 16 certain homes dictate the location of this within the side yard. The Design of modern residential developments tends to provide ' for this contingency, by staggering or alternating the location of air conditioning equipment so that said equipment is not located next to or close to adjoinging residential structures. However, it should also be noted that placement of said units in a side yard tends to discourage access from a front yard to a rear yard, ,particularly in cases of dense development. Finally, it should be noted that this section applies only to accessory uses or ,equipment' being located in required side yards. There- fore, if an individual has a side yard in excess of the basic requir~emerits, the said cooling structures or equipment can be located in the 'side yard, to the extent that the required setback is mainta~i.ned from 'the cooling structure equipment to the property line. ANALYSIS: Amend this section to allow air conditioning cooling structures and condensers in required side yards. 31) Section 10-603: Citizen comments indicates that this section, which generally requires a submission of Certified Site Plan drawings in case of building and zoning permits, but also further particularly "en- courages" developers to submit a Certified Site Plan in case of resurfacing of an existing parking lot, be amended to not encou- rage the submission of a Certified Site Plan in case of the re-surfacing of an existing parking lot. The intent of this section is to encourage re-surfacing of an existing parking lot in compliance with the new parking standards a~s established in this ordinance, which also would mean adherance to new and appro- priate standards regarding maneuverability and parking lot design, together with drainage improvements that might be necessary to alleviate flooding. It should be noted, however, that any exi- sting parking lot is a legally established pre-existing use under the terms of this ordinance, and complaince with this section cannot be mandated, without radically changing the treat- ment of pre-existing uses in the ordinance as a whole. In fact, strict application of this section might encourage a developer to actually not resurface an exiting parking lot when re-surfacing is actually called for for basic safety and maneuverability reasons. ANALYSIS: Remove the language in this ordinance section encoura- ging the applicant to submit a Certified Site Plan that adheres newdesign standards for parking lots that are to be resurfaced. 32. Section 10-605: Citizen comment indicates that this section, which prescribes design standards or requirements accessory to parking under this • . Chairman Wilson and ~nbers of the Commission • City of LaPorte Page 17 ' ordinance be amended to allow parking "in all. .`set-back areas". This section of the ordinance does not prohibit parking in any particular set back area, and in deed the ordinance as a.,whole only prohibits parking in set-back areas in the case of parking lots of five or more spaces that directly abut a residential _ district (in which case the ordinance requires that the parking lot be screened from the abutting residential district), or in the case of property being located on a designated parkway, no use shall be provided, including parking within twenty (20) feet of the parkway right-of-way. These are the only two instances in the whole ordinance in which parking and .set-backs conflict. The design standards and criteria established. in this ordinance are much more 1 iberal than our current parking. design standards and requirements. Further, from a standpoint~of legal liablity, the City of La Porte must require driveway and parking lot design to specifically mitigate the chances of vehiculuar accidents so that the City of La Porte would not be in a,liability=posture in the case of accidents that could be attributed to poor driveway design. . ANALYSIS: Do not amend section 10-605 of ,the Ordinance. 33) Section 11-101: Citizen imput on this section indicates that developers issued building permits prior to the effective date of this ordinance should be allowed to continue their construction as per the building permit which they were issued. This section :states that construction must begin within a six month period. If it is not the building permit is void. This comment is taken directly from the building code and in no way prevents current construction from continuing if permitted before the effective date of the ordinance. ANALYSIS: Leave this section as written. 34) Section 11-102: Citizen comment requests that, this section of the ordinance, which deals with the expiration of building permits issued under this ordinance and the Southern Standard Building Code adopted by the City of La Porte be deleted. The ordinance provides that the failure to commence any work described in a building permit issued under this ordinance within 180 days from the': date of issuance of the permit, causes building permit. to expire and be cancelled. This requires the applicant to apply for and be issued a new building permit prior to subsequent commencement of work. It should be noted that this language is copied ~~erbatim from the standard building permits currently issued by the City of La Porte under the terms of our current ordinance no. _ 780, the Southern Standard Building Code that has been adopted by the • Chairman Wilson and tubers of the Commission City of LaPorte Page 18 ' City'Council of the City of La Porte, and the proposed ordinance. Removal of this section from the Ordinance would not remove the requirement,, since this ordinance section correlates Zoning ordinance. requirements to existing building code requirements, so that builders will. have every opportunity to know that the requirement exists, and so our zoning regulations are clear and consistent with our building code regulations. ANALYSIS;:. Leave :.this section of the ordinance as is. 35) Section. 11-60.6(,2) (c) (2): Citizen comments indicate that the definition of "unneccessary hardships", as defined,. be changed to include economic hardship as well as physical hardship. State law and court cases clearly and. repetitively specify that "unneccesary hardship" shall mean physicial hardship relating to the property itself as distinguished from hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations or caprice and that the hardship must not result from the applicant or property owner's own actions. The City of La Porte would adopt an ordinance that is not consistent with State Law and court decisions if this definition was changed to include mere economic hardship. ANALYSIS: This section of the ordinance should remain as is. 36) Section 11-612: Citizen comment recommends that an applicant who is denied a variance, special exception or appeal would not be able to reapply for anew variance, special exception, or appeal from a determina- tion of the. zoning administrator from the board of adjustment for a period of six months after the original denial. This would change the proposed zoning requirement that would deny reapplication for a period of_ one year from the date of the original denial. Current Orc1i,nance 780 provides that there should be no reapplication for a; period of one year from the date of original denial. This provision has not caused difficulty and has not been a problem in tte past. Shorting the period from one year to six months might make this ordinance section a problem due to increased work load on the board of adjustment and city staff. ANALYSIS: Leave this section of the ordinance as is. 37) R-3 Zone: Citizen input indicates that the high density residential zone in the proposed Ordinance is not necessary, particularly since there might be cases in which these districts would be adjoining traditional low density single family detached residential zones, Chairman Wilson and embers of the Commission ' City of LaPorte ~ ` ' , _ Page 19 which might adversely impact the R-1 zone_„property values in such cases. The intent : of the Comprehensive ~ Plan is to place high . density residential developments into a high tensity residential zone, as opposed to the current Ordinance's placement of high density residential uses in the broad based commercial classifi- cation. Further, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that provision of high density residential dwelling units is crucial for the future ecomomic development of the City. `The Steeping Committee ratified the sentiments of the Planners .and the Comprehensive Plan by suggesting that a high density residential- d-istrict be provided. in the Zoning Ordinance. There would seem to be little if any evidence to indicate that location of an R-3 adjacent to an R-1 zone would have any adverse impact upon the R-1 zone property value, particularly if the screening and setback require- ments of the proposed Ordinance are met.. ANALYSIS: Retain the R-3 residential district provisions in their current form. 38) P.U.D. Districts: Citizen comment indicated a concern about the placement of planned unit developments within an existing or proposed R-1 neighborhood. The proposed Ordinance contains strict locational~ and impact abatement criteria that should mitigate significantly the impact of any P.U. D. within any R-1 neighborhood. For example, the proposed Ordinance requires a minimum size of three acres in order to place any P. U. D. within an R-1 zone. This will effectively alleviate the placement of a P.U.D. into such a zone, except in cases in which significant vacant land exists (in an existing neighborhood), or in cases of new subdivision or site plan development in undeveloped areas. In addition, P. U.D.'s within R-1 zones must comply with all R-1 district regulations on the perimeter of the P.U.D. , including density, setback, and lot coverage requirements, so that R-1 homes abutting the P.U.D. will face R-1 development identical ,to R-1 development .required in any case. Further, the Comp`reherisive Plan contemplates P.U. D. development as an effective planning and development tool for all districts, providing developers with flexibility in the development design. ANALYSIS: Keep the plan "unit development regulations in their current form. 39) Greenway Corridors: Citizen comments has indicated that the term "Greenway Corridor" needs to be defined; that the Comprehensive Plan .does not appropriately designate Greenway Corridors and these corridors Chairman Wilson and ~nbers, ,pf,.the Commission City of LaPorte ~ `f. `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Page 20 are npt , located. .so ~ as to, provide the highest and best use of ~~ certain property,;', that when Greenway Corridors are located by the ~~~,; Compr,eherisive~';P1,an,.on the zoning.map, that the City of La Porte • „ shoulc] purchase .them;., and there should be no additional setback _ _~~`requirements imposed; ,on uses, located adjacent to Greenway Corri- _ ~.~dors. it_" is.',.~clear that a definition for Greenway Corridor needs to be includ,eci~win ,tli°e~Ordinance. .Further, the Ordinance contains j~ de,.tailed 'arid „', complex requirements regarding said Corridors. These requirements "need to b.e discussed very carefully by the Planning arid. Z,pn.ing .Commission and" a determination needs to be made regarding the .'relationship „o"f, these Ordinance sections to the goals established in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehen- sive Plan establishes city-wide networks for open space, recrea- t~ional facilities, parkland, and conservation needs. If these goals are ~to 'be adopted as: desirable ,by the City Council, provi- sions stiou.ld be 'mad,e for parkT~arid location, open spaces, recrea- tional ,facilities, and',. ~ conservation areas and other areas of .scenic ,pre,servatiori on ~ the map and within the text of the Zoning Ord~inance.° The Steering Committee, "based upon the recpmendation from the .planriing~,co,nsultants, adopted these objectives as sound. " The Planning,arid "Zoning Commission, when it passed the Open ' Apace and. ~ Pedestrain "System, Plan,, the Recreational Facilities ;~Plari, and the Beau'ti,fication and Conservation Plan also adopted >incl.u:sio'ri of " the,se~, amenities 'and; needs as a litigimate goal for ' ' the City'' of La Porte. The Zon"irig Ordinance and Zoning Map as proposed attempts to provide for the above-mentioned goals and needs, and, also attempts to...establish locations for these ameni- . ~ .ties. As, ;proposed, Greenway Corridors are locations of parks, conserva,ti:on areas and, :related open spaces upon certain desig- • Hated 'zoni`ng map locations." `The vast majority of these map designations are included in currently existing public right-of- way. The Ordinance also requires that properties developed adjacent to"any designated Greenway Corridor at a minimum setback of 'twenty (20) feet from said Corridor. The setback is from .either the Greenway Corridor. itself or the rightof-way line. .The setback pertains .to all.: developments, from single family '~resi:clential 'to ~ industrial . ~ Ma`intenarice of the setback areas is by private citizens and by the public sector on the public right- , of-ways. This maintenance scenario sets up a situation of ack- ward ~ma,interiance responsibil-ty'..~~',,, ~ .~,": ~~ `ANALYSIS: Greenway Corridors ,need: ~to be defined in the Ordinance. All Greenway Corridors should be~ privately owned and subject to the setback requ:irem:ent,.. except .for Greenway Corridors located adjacent to single family~~res-id-ential developments, in which case . ,the setback would only apply if the development is located adjacent '~ to, .. a. designated conservation district, located as such on the zoning ,map. I,n the case of multi-family developments, the setback would;~apply next to. ,. ,the Greenway Corridor, however, the multi- . ,. `:.family developer would. receive credit under the Parkland Dedication _ Chairman Wilson and mb~ers ~of t"he Conmitte'e '_.' ` `~ `'' ;-' ~`~~' Pa e` 2"1" "• .. .~ ~ `City, of LaPorte ~ ~ ~"' "' g~ ~~ Requirement of the City of ~ La Porte ~~bevelopm:erit ' ~Ordtiance and would also receive a density bohus'` in E'he ,Zo{n;ng" Ordin'anc~e~ The O Greenway Corridor may become ~a public Greeriway, `Co~r~`ido~r"wti~eh and if it is designated as such 'on the z'on~irig, map'.' Public Gr~enway Corridors are to be acquired by ~ the City `~of~. La ` Po"rte'"an'd'`•inain- tamed by the City of La Porte. For tlie.purp'ose,_,o,f' }this section all commercial and industrial. uses, wil~',` be ~treat'`ed ' in ' the same manner as single-family residential uses. `' The City,. o'f 'La:..Porte should purchase and maintain or allow the d~evelopm'en+t to. proceed without meeting the setback requirements""accept'r;'in~ 'zon.ing map designated conservation district:,. t •, ~~ . ~' ' ~ ~ , 40) Parkway Corridor ~ ," ' Citizen comment indicates ,tYi`a~t , th'e ~tw~enty, "~(20,) ,'foo't' ~se'ttia'ck on property adjacent to desigYia_t`ed:parkway;co:rridors 'is napp;rop'riate. There will be affect ~of the'se' r.equ;irements.~~ unt'il.:'~ and unless parkways are designated ~~on~ .the_~ zoning~_`map' " The' "intent of the comprehensive plan and .d esig;nated ." par)c'way "and ,setback's "a'd'jacent to parkways is to achieve' city beauti.f ication .'and. ,to ~"establ'i'sh, an image of enviromental equality and concern .wi.tli;' the''~City of La Porte. Entry threshhol'd's ,are an ", introgal" .part;'~of' they' parkway system as discussed in the ' ci"ty. t'hroug:hofar,'e' arid, beauti"fic,ation plans passed by the City o,f" La.` Porte" Plan"n.hg and, Zon irig Commission. This setback is to be landscaped" and' maintained. by the, ,r.espective property owners. ~ q - - ~. :.. _ .. ..,- ANALYSIS: If the Planning and~,Zonin.g; Coinmi'ssion wishes `to''"achieve the object iv es of the Comprehensive' plan ~:th~e " Ord-in.ance :'sections regarding parkways and parkway corridors should be ;reta'ined'. If however, these requirements prove to be too costly then they should be removed. 41) Parking and}Curb Requirements: ~~ - Citizen imput indicates .that,. tti'e term curb_~ needs to b'e~ d'efined to allow convenitial"„"c'urb;;:s;tops` as wel`Y`"as~ `poured' ~~cur'bing if desired. ~.~~~.- , t ... :. ~ .. , ..:°:~~. " ;-" ,~"; :, ,-. ANALYSIS: Staff sees no con~'1`ct with the ~Comprehensiv~e_Pla'n and this addition to the definitidn ~ of sect"TCSn 'to "allow' ~'cur13 `'stops as opposed to solid curbs. ,"This addition will .make ,parking lot drainage substaintally easier to obtain Wand less costly-;,t:..".,=-'-:~:: 42) Additional Setback Adjacent" to"~Major~,Thresuglofaresz " ~ ~~ Citizen imput indicates that' the ~r"equ~rement~ `of ~an additional five foot to ten foot setback of a ,true"tore from a major- through- ofare should be deleted. Review_;of this 'requireme'n't `indicates that proper throughofare planning`" as,"~contain~ed in t~tie"th'~ougho- fare plan removes the need for' futi'ure~fight=of-wa'y` acquisition and widening. Chairman Wilson and i tubers of the Commission City of LaPorte Pag ~2~ -„ ANALYSIS: Without additional demonstrated need,this requirement should be removed pursuant to the citizen imput. 43 ).Section 4-101: Citizen comment -indicates that throughofares designated on the throughofare plan-(but in which no right-of-way currently exists) should -.not be <an ,impediment to the location of buildings, unless the right-of-way'is purchased by the City of La Porte. ANALYSIS.. This requirement all ready exists within the Development Ordinance. With limited space, the addition of buildings within designated throughofare locations -could ultimately make future throughofare right-of-way acquisition prohibitively costly. Also, the City of La Porte is-not the only public entity responsible for throughofare`acquisition, and coordination among these public governments is critical. Frustration of ultimate throughofare acquisition could prove virtually fatal to the economic development of 'the City of La Porte. This section should be left as is. 44) Section 10-605 (10): Citizen comment. indicates that the five foot setback required surrounding parking areas is not needed. Further the requirement of a solid -curb surrounding the parking area is questioned. Anaylsis indicates no, particularly safety or asthitic concern addressed by these requirements. ANALYSIS: Only require curb stops only where 'the parking lot adjoins only require the five. foot setback public right-of-ways.- Note that no mention in this five foot setback ar instead of solid curbs and public right-of-ways. Also, on parking areas adjacent to landscaping requirements are ~ea. Respectfully submitted, John D. Armstrong David Paul issen John Joerns