HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-29-1985 Regular Called Meeting~..
AGEI`iDA
REGULAR CALLED MEETING OF THE LA PORTE PLANNING AND ZONING COI~?MISSION
TO BE HELD AUGUST 29, 1985, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY HALL
604 WEST FAIRMOI`iT PARKWAY, LA PORTE, TEXAS, BEGITINING AT 7:00 p.n.
1. CALL TO OP.DER 7• ~~
2. CONSIDER APPROVITG MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING HELD. ON AUGUST 15,
1985
3. DISCUSS PUBLIC Ir:PUT REGARDING TEXT OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE
4. CONSIDER APPROVING TEXT OF PROPOSED ZOl`?ING ORDITIAIVCE.
5. ADJOURNMENT '
~ Q,~ ~ ~,u, ~~ ~'~-~ ~~' ~ ~~--ems,
`C-c~cv-t~c.~t 'J'/~L~~~9,/hez, ~Q~c~ec~ sic
p ems- ~~t/~u-~- -e'° ~~~-~~
~;~
,~
~ ~ ~~~
~o ~ ~~
~H-' .
~ ~
~/~.~'
~ ~~~ ~
~~ U
~-~-
•
C
LJ
•
MINUTES OF THE
LA PORTE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 29, 1985 MEETING
1. At 7:04 p.m. Chairman Andy Wilson called the meeting to
order.
Members of the Commission Present: Chairman Andy Wilson,
Charlie Doug Boyle, Karl Johnston, Janet Graves, R. J.
Blackwell, Ed Murphree
Members of the Commission Absent: Lola Phillips
City Staff Present: Chief Building Official David
Paulissen, Director Community Development John Joerns,
Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Assistant City
Manager Richard Hare, Executive Secretary Gwen Vann
Others Present: Bayshore Sun's Barbara Neal, Citizens Mrs.
Adair Sullivan, Mrs. Helen McFerren, Mr. Eddie Gray, Ms.
Janet Gray, Mr. Rufus Smith, Mr. Doyle Westergren and
several other interested citizens.
2. Chairman Andy Wilson asked that Mr. Ed Murphree come forth
and take the Oath of Office from Assistant City Attorney
John Armstrong as a new member of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
After being sworn in to Planning and Zoning Commission,
Chairman Wilson asked that Mr. Murphree share a few things
about himself to the Commission.
3. Chairman Wilson indicated that Mrs. Adair Sullivan had
submitted a letter to the Commission. The minutes of the
August 15, 1985 meeting, along with Mrs. Sullivan's letter
was presented to the Commission for approval. Time was
given for Mr. Blackwell to look over the minutes as he had
not read them.
Janet Graves made a motion to approve the minutes and also
the letter aresented by Mrs Adair Sullivan and Bobbv
Blackwell seconded the motion. The motion carried with
6 aves, 0 naves.
4. Chairman Wilson commended the staff on the good job they
did in putting their ideas that were received from the
public into report form. He indicated that the staff had
put the public input into special categories. Chairman
Wilson entertained that after reading, the staff
presentation section by section that we get a vote on each
•
c
Minutes of the Planning and Zoning
August 29, 19$5
Page 2
•
section, and if that item is too complicated than another,
we can abort that idea and move to item by item.
At this point, Mr. Boyle did not want to vote on any of
staff recommendation until discussed in more detail.
Chairman Wilson explained that if the Commission goes
through the staff recommendation item by item, and there
needs to be any changes, then they can discuss it. Andy
disagreed that Commission should not move forward because
it has been worked on for some time and he indicated that
all he was doing is setting ground work.
Bobby Blackwell said he could not see any problem with
Chairman Wilson's suggestion.
David Paulissen, Chief Building Official passed out a
memorandum on the ProQosed Zoning Ordinance, Analysis of Public
• Hearing Comments (see copy attached to minutes)
John Armstrong, Assistant City Attorney commended the citizens
of La Porte for their excellent input. He then introduced
Chief Building Official David Paulissen who said the staff had
attempted to compare the comments with the Comprehensive Plan
and Staff's position would be to recommend favorably upon the
citizen input if the Comprehensive Plan isn't stymied.
C Page 2 of Memo -
Item 1) Definition of Commercial Motor Vehicle and Light Truck:
Parking of one ton trucks in a residential - Staff feels that
in a case where a resident makes his living, he should be
allowed to park his truck at his resident and staff saw no
problem with this.
2) e c
Staff felt wrought iron fence could benefit the city and
wouldn't interfere with the Comprehensive Plan, however they
had a problem with acceptable steel mesh fences. Staff
recommended that acceptable steel mesh fences be left out of
the description but they felt good about wrought iron fence
because it is such a specific term and felt it could well
benefit the city and in no way would defeat the purpose of the
• -
•
• Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission
August 29, 1985
Page 3
Comprehensive Plan.
C 3) Hei
Citizen comment on height saying the permissible height of
45 feet should be included within the description. Staff
recommendation was not to place this specific height
limitation within the definition.
4) Ranch Trailer
Staff sees no possible conflict with the Comprehensive Plan
to include a definition of Ranch Trailer so what staff did
was to take that definition from the truck route ordinance
and include it here.
5) ~o~ding Berth
Citizens input was correct that this definition was not
. included but as with other comments, staff sees no conflict
within the Comprehensive Plan and recommends that this be
included.
6) Page 21 of Memo -
Item 41 - Parking & Curb Requirements:
Citizen input felt that the words "curb stop" should be the
C definition here. Staff has no problem with the typical
curb stop and therefore we are not creating a problem with
sheet draining of a parking lot or things of the nature.
The other term "parkway corridor" was mentioned here but
the staff wanted to wait until they take the section on
beautification, landscaping, etc. This concluded the
definition section.
Chairman Wilson entertained a motion that we accept the public
recommendations dealing with the definitions.
Bobby Blackwell made a motion to accept the .public and staff
recommendations, Karl Johnston seconded it, but there was other
discussion concerning the height. David Paulissen Chief
Building Official read the definition of height in the
ordinance to clear up some questions. He indicated that this
did not pertain to three-story buildings .• Specific height
requirements will be discussed at a later date. The next
r~
- • •
C7
Minutes of Planning & Zoning Commission
August 29, 1985
Page 4
C question was concerning definition on Ranch Trailer. John
Armstrong indicated that the truck route ordinance has the word
for word definition in commentary.
After this discussion, Chairman Wilson said since the motion
was seconded, all in favor, signify by saying "Aye", all
opposed, Motion carried adopting definitions.
Chairman Wilson suggested Commission begin with Section 2.
6) Section 2-703
Staff's decision on this was to Change Section 2-703 of the
proposed ordinance to read as contained in Section 9-105 of
current Ordinance 780 since developers were pleased with the
way to current ordinance read.
7) Section 2-800
• Staff recommended that no change be made in this section of the
proposed zoning ordinance.
Chairman Wilson entertained a motion be made on Section 2.
Motion made by Janet Graves, Seconded ~ Bobbv Blackwell.
There was no opposition, the motion carried.
C Chairman Wilson asked that we move to Section 4.
8) Section 4-10~
This section deals with a through-lot situation. Unclear to
citizens in its wording. The 20-foot is to apply to a rear
setback in the case of a through lot situation in a residential
district.
9) Section 4-104
Citizen comment was to remove setbacks in the case of
commercial developments. When compared to Comprehensive Plan,
staff recommended that there be no change to this section.
Chairman Wilson indicated that setbacks were a vitally
important part of any type of comprehensive plan or plan.
•
•
C
Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission
August 29, 1985
Page 5
Commissioner Blackwell was concerned that a 20-ft. setback
seemed like an awful lot of property. Is this necessary for
the plan.
Chief Building Official David Paulissen gave a brief discussion
on the need for setbacks. He explained some of the problems
that we have seen in the past with reference to rear setbacks,
and in comparing this to the Master Plan, it was in the
furtherance of the Master Plan, so staff feels there is no
other option but to leave this section as is.
Chairman Wilson recommended that we adopt Section 4
recommendations as presented. Motion by Janet Graves,. Seconded '
by Karl Johnston. Motion carried with no opposition.
10) Section 5-404 (2) (a) (2):
This section deals with Citizen input pertaining to proximity
of a multi-family dwelling structure from a public or private
• street. This proximity is measured as the fire hose would lay.
Citizens feel that this should be increased to correspond with
the fire code requirement for distance to a fire hydrant. Mr.
Paulissen gave a brief explanation of this section of the
ordinance. Staff recommended that citizen input be utilized in
this case and make the distance 300 instead of 200 ft.
11) SectiQn~-404 (2) (a) (5):
C Length of a cul-de-sac or dead-end street. Staff recommended
that this section be left unchanged.
12) ,section 5-501:
This section 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. Mr. Paulissen asked that the commission turn to table
5-600 and notice the structure of the ordinance. According to
the chart, the uses are defined and staff recommended that this
section remain unchanged.
13) Section 5-600: Citizens input was what is a
single-family dwelling special lot. Mr. Paulissen showed an
example on the blackboard explaining in a,single-family lot and
a special lot. Staff recommends that we add a definition of
• - r
• Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission
August 29, 1985
Page 6
single family special lot.
Chairman Wilson entertained a motion to adopt staff
recommendation as result of public input for Section 5-404 (2)
a) (2).~ 5-404 (2) (a) (5 ), Section 5-501, Section 5-600.
Motion made by Mr. Blackwell,. Seconded by Mrs. Graves, Motion
carried with no opposition=
A ten minute recess was called here by Chairman Wilson and
meeting convened at 8:30 p.m.
14) Section 5-700, Table B (Residential):
Staff felt that a 45 ft. height for a single family
neighborhood is an extremely high structure. Staff felt this
to be a bit excessive. Chief Building Official David Paulissen
explained why staff felt it best to leave 35 ft. as an
appropriate height in a single family residential.
• Mr. Boyle asked what the procedure was to change the height in
an R-1 zone.
David Paulissen told him the appeal procedure in the ordinance
is how that would have to be done.
If they had to go higher than the 35 feet, they would have to
give reason before the Board of Adjustment.
Chairman Wilson asked if there was a consensus or any objection
to adopting recommendation that would leave the height
restriction at 35 feet for a single-family detached and include
45 feet for duplexes, townhouses, quadraplexes and multi-family
dwelling units according to citizen comments. There were no
objections, so the commission moved to the second portion of
Section 5-700.
The next citizen comment on Table B relates to density for
single family detached dwelling units. Chief Building Official
David Paulissen explained that density figures are measured in
units per acre. Staff did not see any problem with changing
the density from 4.5 to 4.8 because it is still within the
respective districts as set forth in the land use plan, and a
change to the suggested figures should not impact the
Comprehensive Plan. p
•
. , ~- ~
• Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission
August 29, 1985
Page 7
The third thing on 5-700-Table B on lot coverages. Citizen
input for maximum lot coverage for single family zero lot line
should be increased from 60 to 70~, the maximum lot coverage
from multi-family should be increased to 65~. The maximum
coverage for single family detached should be increased from 40
to 50%.
John Joerns Director of Community Development gave several
scenarios to explain in more detail about lot coverages.
After some discussion from the Commission, Chairman Wilson
entertained a motion that on Section 5-700 Table B on citizen
comment that we go ahead on the single family maintaining 40~
and with the multi-family go to 65~. Is there a motion?
Commissioner Blackwell indicated that we needed more discussion
on this. Mrs. Graves said she would personally like to see
the multi-family left at 60~. Mr. Blackwell seconded the
motion. The motion carried with no opposition.
• 15) Section 5-800 C:
This section deals with a conditional use permit. Assistant
City Attorney John Armstrong explained this in detail. It was
recommended that this section be left as is.
Chairman Andy Wilson entertained a motion that this section be
left in tact. Motion made by Mr. Blackwell and Seconded by Mr.
Karl Johnston. Motion carried with no opposition.
C 16) Section 6-500:
This Section deals with heights in commercial areas. Staff
sees no impact in increasing the height in neighborhood
commercial to 45 feet and sees no conflict with the plan and
would suggest we make that change.
17) Section 6-600:
-. ,
This section deals with glass covered lights. Staff recommends
leaving this section as is.
18) Section 6600 (B) 5:
This section deals with a screening fence and the way
•
.,, ~'
• Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission
August 29, 1985
Page 8
ordinance reads, it says that for every one foot of height
that~s over the top of the screening fence, the distance has
got to be increased 5 feet. Citizen input feels that this
C should be deleted. Staff recommended that Planning and Zoning
carefully consider the goals of the comprehensive plan for
screening versus the practical aspects of the application of
this section and make a decision therefrom.
Chairman Wilson entertained a motion to adopt recommendations
presented in 6-500, 6-600, 6/600 (B)5 (citizen comment that
indicated that the additional five foot set back required
behind the screening fence for every foot of height of stored
material above that fence should be deleted). Motion by Janet
Graves and Seconded by Mr. Johnston Motion carried with no
oggosition.
19) Section 8-200:
This section requests clarification on which rules apply to a
P.U.D. district and which rules apply to a P.U.D. development
• within a particular district. Both are allowed under the
zoning ordinance.
City Attorney John Armstrong said that we didn~t make a staff
recommendation on this section as the comment just basically
has clarification there.
20) Section 8-402 (8):
r Similar comment as above that needs to state the dwelling unit
per acre requirements for P.U.D. District. Assistant City
Attorney John Armstrong said there was no recommendation on
behalf of staff, this was just for verification.
21 ) ,S,gc i n 8-402 ( 10)
This section, citizen comment indicates that the requirement
that the planned unit development be in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan be deleted.
Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong indicated that this part
of the ordinance must be kept.
•
•
• Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission
August 29, 1985
Page 9
22) Section 8-40~:
Citizen input indicates that the 12 month limitation on
C conditional use permits is too short and should be lengthened
to 3 to 5 years.
Staff recommendation is to 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.
Recommended that this section be left as is but perhaps, make a
clear reference to the Development Ordinance sections that
apply.
Chairman Wilson made a motion that we reach a consensus on the
adoption of the recommendations made for Sections 8-200, 8-402
• (8), 8-402 (10), 8-403 and 8-404 (B). Motion by Mr. Blackwell
~d Seconded by Janet Graves. Motion carried with no
opposition.
24) Section 10-101 (4):
This citizen input deals with construction schedules for
multistage planned unit developments. Staff feels the word
C "approximate" should be included before the starting date and
completion date.
25) Section 10-101 6 (C):
Citizen input indicates that the term "sufficient amount of
usuable open space" is somewhat vague. In the P.U.D.
situation, flexibility has to happen and must be in general
compliance per Mr. Paulissen. Any amendment to this section
would remove flexibility.
26) Section 10-102 (e):
Citizen comment indicates 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. Staff recommends that
•
• Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission
August 29, 1985
Page 10
the City Attorney review these deed restrictions as they are
legal documents and to leave this section as it is.
C 27) Section 10-10~:
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. Assistant
City Attorney John Armstrong said staff decided to go along
with the citizen comment.
28) Section 10-104:
This section also deals with clarification of headings and just
as in Section 10-103 #27, staff decided to go along with the
citizen comment.
29) Section 10-201 (4):
• Citizen input indicates that the one year limitation on
conditional use permit should be extended to a three to five
year period. (see Item No. 22 comments on page 9)
30) Section 10-~02 (7):
Citizen comment indicates that this section, which prohibits
accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling
C ~ 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.
Staff recommends that this section allow air conditioning
cooling structures and condensers in required side yards.
31) Section 10-60
Citizen-input 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
"encourages" developers to submit a Certified Site Plan in case
of resurfacing of an existing parking lot, be amended to not
encourage the submission of a Certified Site Plan in case of
the re-surfacing of an existing parking lot.
n
U
,.
.~
•
• Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission
August 29, 1985
Page 11
Chief Building Official David Paulissen and the staff
recommends that we remove the language in this ordinance
section encouraging the applicant to submit a Certified Site
C Plan that adheres new design standards for parking lots that
are to be resurfaced.
32) Section 10-605:
Citizen comment indicates that this section, which says that
parking should be allowed in setback areas be amended.
Chief Building Official David Paulissen and staff felt this
section should not be amended.
Chairman Wilson entertained a motion that we adopt staff
recommendation on items 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 and defer
item 32 until the Sept. 5th meeting. Bobbv Blackwell made the
motion to do this, Mr. Johnston seconded. The motion carried
with no opposition.
Chairman Andy Wilson commended the detailed work that staff had
• prepared on the ordinance.
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at
10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gwen Vann
C
Assistant City Secretary
•