Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-05-1985 Regular Called Meeting~~; r, ~ • ~, s AGENDA REGULAR CALLED MEETING OF THE LA PORTE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO BE HELD SEPTEMBER 5, 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. CONSIDER APPROVING MINUTES OF MEETING ON AUGUST 29, 1985 3. DISCUSS PUBLIC INPUT REGARDING TEXT OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE. 4. APPROVED TEXT OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE 5. ADJOURNMENT • • f' MINUTES OF THE LA PORTS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 19$5 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Wilson at 7:06 P.M. 2. Members of the Commission present: Chairman Andy Wilson, Commissioners Ed Murphree, Lola Phillips, Janet Graves, Karl Johnston City Staff Present: Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Chief Building Official David Paulissen, Director of Community Development John Joerns, and Executive Secretary, Gwen Vann. Others Present: Bayshore Sun's Barbara Neal, and citizen Mrs.Adair Sullivan David Paulissen told the Commission that he had received two • rezoning requests. He proposed that we schedule two public hearings for Mr. Wilson for the 3rd of October. There were no objections and Chairman Wilson suggested these xwo requests be placed on the Oct. 3rd agenda. Chairman Wilson went back to regular order of agenda. First item was to approve minutes of the regular meeting of Aug. 29. Due to various hindrances, the minutes were not ready for this meeting. 2. Item ~2, Sectj~on 10-605: Citizen comment indicates that this section, which prescribes design standards or requirements accessory to parking under this ordinance be amended to allow parking "in all set-back areas". Staff recommended that the text of this should be left alone and look at it when we get to the map. Chairman Wilson asked if anyone had questions, if not, he entertained a motion to take staff's recommendations. Mo io by Mr. ~Johnstor~~ SepQnded by Mrs braves,. Motion carried with no objections. r ~ Y ._ ~• • Minutes of Planning and Zoning Sept. 5, 1985 Page 2 3. Items ~3 and~4. Sections 11-101-and 11-102: These two sections deal with building permits and their expiration. In process of reviewing this with the consultants, it was felt that these sections should mesh with ordinances already on the books. Staff recommendation that both sections be left as written. 4. Item ~5 Section_11-606(2) (c) (2) Citizen comment indicates that "unnecessary hardships" be changed to include economic hardship. Zoning Board of Adjustments deals with four basic areas which only a few are pertinent here. One being the granting of variances which is the situation in which a specific requirement in this ordinance should not be met due to unusual lot shape topography and the application of the ordinance makes it very difficult if not impossible for a land owner to develop his land due to application of the ordinance. It • is the appeal mechanism. To get a variance from the board of adjustment, you must show "hardship". It is not an easy thing to get this hardship, so therefore we recommend this part remain the same. ~5. Item ~6 Section 11-612 Basically a question pertaining to policy. Citizen comment recommends that an applicant who is denied a variance, special exception or appleal would not be able to reapply for a new variance, special exception, or appeal from a determination of the zoning administrator from the board of adjustment for a period of six months after the original denial. Staff recommends that we leave this section as is which is 1 year. . Chairman Wilson asked for a motion to take staff's recommendation on Section 11 Items 33-36. Commissioner Lola Philli~~ made the motion, Seconded by Mrs. Graves. Motion married with no opposition. 6. Item 37 R-~ Zone: Citizen input indicates that the high density residential zone in the proposed Ordinance is not necessary. . Staff recommends that the R-3 residential district ~- • Minutes of Planning and Zoning Sept. 5, 1985 Page 3 provisions be left in current form. r Some discussion took place with Mr. Paulissen, Mr. Murphree, and Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong. Chairman Wilson asked if there was any reason why we shouldn't accept Item 37. There were no objections. 7. Item ~8 P.U.D. Districts: Citizen comment indicated a concern about the placement of planned unit developments within an existing or proposed R-1 neighborhood. Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong said Staff recommends it. Chairman Wilson asked if any objections to item 38, there were none, so they accepted it. 8. tPm 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 are not located so as to provide the ~' highest and best use of certain property; that when Greenway Corridors are located by the Comprehensive Plan on the zoning map, that the City of La Porte should purchase them; and there should be no additional setback requirements imposed on uses located adjacent to Greenway Corridors. Director of Community Development John Joerns discussed this section in great lengths. Staff recommendation is if the property is to be developed and a greenway corridor is adjacent or through said property, then the City should purchase the greenway corridor. As with the development ordinance the City must show intent to purchase within 30 days and must complete said purchase within one year. If within the one year period the City does not purchase the property, the developer may utilize the land and the greenway corridor in that section will cease to exist. There was more discussion on this between Director of Community Development John Joerns, Assistant City Attorney r - ...~. c~ • Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission Sept. 5, 1985 Page 4 John Armstrong and Chief Building Official David Paulissen. Mr. Paulissen said that staff had looked long and hard at this and basically our understanding is if the City wants it, put it in the public sector and let them maintain it. 9. Item 40 - Parkway Corridor Citizen comment indicates that the twenty (20) foot setback on property adjacent to designated parkway corridors is inappropriate. This deals with parkway (example Fairmont Parkway). Staff has looked at this in great lengths. We suggest that the 20 foot setback adjacent to parkway corridors remain in the ordinance. Please note that these requirements only apply if said parkway corridors are designated as such on the zoning map. Staff recommends that perhaps Council should look at the proposed designations and determine if all are needed and perhaps consider the application of this requirement to new • parkway corridors. 10. Item 41 - Parking and Curb Requirement; r. Citizen input indicates that the term curb needs to be defined to allow conventional curb stops as well as poured curbing if desired. Staff sees no conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and would recommend that we include the allowance for curb stops to be used here and we would write a definition that would reflect that. 11. Item 42 - Additional Setback Ad1acent to Major Thoroughfares• Citizen input indicates that the requirement of an additional five foot to ten foot setback of a structure from a major thoroughfare should be deleted. Chief Building Official David Paulissen recommended that we adopt the citizens input here and recommend that those additional setbacks adjacent to thoroughfares be deleted. •- r • Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission Sept. 5, 1985 Page 5 12. Item 43 - Section 4-101: Citizen comment indicates that thoroughfares designated on the thoroughfare plan (but in which not 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. This requirement already exists within the Development Ordianance. Staff recommends that this section remain as is. Chairman Wilson suggests that we bring up for a vote to accept staff recommendation. Motion by Mrs. Graves Seconded by Mrs. Phillips. Motion carried with no Apposition. 13. Item 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. Analysis indicates no particularly safety or aesthetic concern addressed by these requirements. n, Staff recommends two foot setback. Chairman Wilson entertained a motion to adopt staff recommendation of 2 feet. Motion by Mr. Johnston, Seconded by Mr. Murphree. Motion carried with ~.o opposition. 14. We have considered public's input on the ordinance, No. 4 is the approval of text of proposed zoning ordinance. Shail we. entertain a motion that we adopt and hold the staff recommendation and what revisions were made in the memorandum and it is a review and direct staff to compose a letter along with the revised ordinance to be signed by the chairman and members of the commission. Motion by Mr. Murphreg. Seconded by Mrs. Graves, Motion carried Wlt~ no opposition. • .r ~ • • Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission Sept. 5, 1985 Page 6 C h a i r ma n W i l o n s ~~,~i u;-~h~e~f~le~a r ~p~ar t. Does anyone make a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Karl Johnston made a motion that we adjourn. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gwen Vann Assistant City Secretary Approved on ~ day of 191 ~ • ~~ • .- _ ~ ~~ • • CITY OF LA PORTE INTER OFFICE MEMO T0: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FROM: D.A.PAULISSEN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DATE: 9/5/85 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING DATE, PARDOE/WESTINGHOUSE The City has received a re-zoning Westinghouse site at Hwy. 146 and a public hearing date be set general public. Contact with the City Attorney's public hearing may be done as a official agenda. Chairman Wilson serious problem setting this date • suggested is Oct. 3, 1985. request from Mr. Al Pardoe the old Hwy. 225. This application requires for input from the applicant and the office indicates that the date for routine matter and need not be on an has indicated that there would be no at tonight's meeting. The date L~ ~ •c • • CITY OF LA PORTE INTER OFFICE MEMO T0: PLANNING & ZONING COM MISSION FROM: D.A.PAULISSEN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DATE: 9/5/85 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING DATE, BLK. 653 The City has received a re-zoning request from Bayport National Bank on all of Block 653, Town of La Porte. This application requires a public hearing date be set for input from the applicant and the general public. Contact with the City Attorneyts office indicates that the date for public hearing may be done as a routine matter and need not be on an official agenda. Chairman Wilson has indicated that there would be no serious problem setting this date at tonight~s meeting. The date • suggested is Oct. 3, 1985. • . ., REVIEW & QMI~PARY ON THE LA PC~TE ZCL~IING ORDINANC.'E - • CQI~TIS BY FAIRVUNr PARK JOINT VE[~TiURE - EIDIE V. GRAY, DEVELOPER A1~ID JANANE'.C L . GRAY ORAL C~111VIRI`TI'S ON DEFINITICi~I5 -- The following items need to be defined or their definition needs to be made more specific: 1. Parkway Corridors 2. Greenway Corridor - 3. Cam-r~ercial Motor Vehicle and Light Truck - definitions should both include a phrase that a crnmercial motor vehicle is one which is larger than 1 ton. 4. Fence -- this definition should include wrought iron fences or acceptable steel mesh fences. 5. Height - the definition should include a permissible height of 45' from grade. 6. Ranch trailer _ 7. Curb 8. Loading Berth QZ1~'>I~'S Ci~1 ARTICLE 1: Section 1 - 300 -- The canprehensive plan shows large amounts of public use and greenbelt/park areas which the city may not have funds to purchase. Therefore, the enforcement of the zoning ordinance, as it pertains•to an individual property owner, can only comply with the comprehensive plan to the extent that the city has 'the funds available to purchase such greenbelt or park/public use areas. Further, there are some areas of the comprehensive plan which do not reflect the best use of that property. For example, the ca~rehensive plan shows residential areas located in portions of the city where residential development is not desirable due to the light industrial character of the neighborhood. Therefore the co~rehensive plan should serve only as a guide for the zoning ordinance enforcement. Q1VNErTI'S CST ARTICLE 2 Section 2 - 703 -- This section is difficult to understand and apply. Also it is not applicable to large tracts under single ownership which - have several zoning districts within the property boundary. Section 2 - 800 -- This section should clearly indicate which uses are the most restrictive and which uses are the least restrictive. Q~1VIRrTI'S C[V ARTICLE 4: Section 4 - 101 -- This section should be reworded to state that until such time as the City of La Porte has the funding to purchase street right-of-ways as shown on the thoroughfare plan, then such proposed s s thoroughfare plan shall not affect the placement of any buildings on properties affected by the proposal. Section 4 - 103 -- This section does not state whether the minim~an setback of 20' applies to the rear yard or the front yard. Since there is no access allowed from the rear yard to the major street, there's no need for any additional setback on the rear yard. Section 4 - 104 -- This commercial development wit existing or proposed stree reworded future development not be feasible. aC1M~Ti'S Ct~ ARTICLE 5: section should be revised to allow for h buildings located within 20' from an t right-of-way. If this Section is not and redevelopment of old A4ain Street will Section 5 - 404 Sub-paragraph 2A 2 -- This section should correspond with the fire department regulations pertaining to fire protection. in residential areas. Therefore, this section should be reworded to state that any residential building may be located within 500' from a. fire hydrant as the fire hose would lay. Section 5 - 404 Sub-paragraph 2A 5 -- The maximiun length of a cul-de-sac street should correspond with the length allowed by the Federal Housing Administration and be permitted as long as the street has the standard fire hydrant spacing as required by the fire department. Section 5 - 501 -- This section states that -other residential and supporting uses may be permitted within manufactured housing districts; however, it does not define the supporting uses which are permitted. Section 5 - 600 -- This section needs to define single dwelling special lot. Section 5 - 700 Table B Residential -- This table needs to increase the maxim~an height restriction column to 45' for all residential uses. This will allow homes built on stilts due to the floodplain and would also allow 3-story multi-family buildings. Further, sane homes in the floodplain are forced to build up their grade. However, if they cover the additional grade by a brick facing, the measurement would be higher than the 35' limit. Also, the minimtm site area per unit should be increased to 4.8 dwelling units per acre for single family detached This is the current lot yield per acre in major La Porte subdivisions and provides adequate spacing and yard areas for quality residential development. Also the minimum site area per unit should be increased on multi-family to 27 dwelli units per acre, which corresponds with the current La Porte practice on multi- amily densities. The maxirrnrn lot cover percentage should be increased for single family detached to 50$. This would allow larger homes to be built on lots for families desiring a slightly smaller yard area. The maxinnun lot coverage for single family zero lot line should be increased to 70$ because this style of hones is specially designed to appeal to hone buyers who desire very little yard maintenance. The maximtm lot coverage on multi-family should be increased to 65$. r: • • /` J • Section 5 - 701 Footnote 2 front setbacks are adequate ROGV's is sufficient. s -- This setback should be deleted because the and the 10' side yard setback next to public Section 5 - 201 Footnote 3 -- Both the greenbelt area itself and the 20' landscaped setback along the public greencvay corridors are equivalent to city park land and therefore should be purchased by the city fran the land ocvner and maintained by the city. There is no definition ~of parkways in the Zoning Ordinance. However, is the city desires to improve its parkways (thoroughfares), then the city should purchase such land area from land owners and landscape and maintain such areas at city expense. Therefore, we recommend that Footnote 3 be deleted from the Zoning Ordinance. Section 5 - 800 Subparagraph -- This section is so broad that it would be nearly impossible to enforce it fairly in regard to all property owners, especially as the section pertains not only to existing surrounding uses but future surrounding uses (which are impossible to determine now). Further this section does not state who would be responsible for deciding the "compatibility". Therefore we recommend that this section be deleted from the Zoning Ordinance because other provisions of the Ordinance adequately provide for the goal that this section is trying to achieve. aQV11~TIS ~T ARTICLE 6 • Section 6 - 500 -- Under the maxim~an height, neighborhood commercial heights should be increased to 45'. Section 6 - 501 Footnote 1 -- Footnote 1 should be revised to require the City of La Porte to purchase both greenbelt areas and any landscape setback areas lying adjacent to public greenway corridors from the land owner for the city to maintain as public park areas. Parkway corridors is not defined in this ordinance, however, if the city wishes to landscape city thoroughfares the city should purchase such land area from land owners and landscape and maintain the area at the city expense as public park areas. Therefore we recommend that Footnote 1 under Section 6 - 501 be deleted from the Ordinance or revised to reflect that the city will purchase and maintain such 20' landscape setbacks and greenbelt corridor areas. Section 6 - 501 Footnote 3 -- Parking should be allowed in commercial yard setbacks. Further, this additional thoroughfare setback is unnecessary and should be deleted. Section 6 - 600 Subparagraph B4 -- Lighting which is covered by a glass globe should be allowed in such commercial areas. Section 6 - 600 Subparagraph B5 -- If the area leas the required screening, then the 5' setbacks are an unreasonable restriction on the r~ ~ s landoctiners' com;nercial use and this 5' additional setback within the • storage area should be deleted from the Ordinance. Q1t21'~TIS QN ARTIGZE 8: . Section 8 - 200 -- This section needs clarification on which rules apply to a PLID District and which rules apply to a PLID developed within a residential, commercial, or industrial district. Section 8 - 4.02 #8 -- This section needs to state the dwelling unit per acre requirements for a PLD District. PLD Districts normally have higher densities. Section 8 - 402 #10 -- This requirement should be deleted in line with our comments under Section 1 - 300 on the first page of this cocrmentary. Section 8 - 400 -- The twelve month limitation on conditional use permits is too short and should be lengthened to three to five years. Section 8 - 404 B -- A minor change in a major or minor development site plan should not require resubmission of a new general plan. CCIVNIF~TI'S ON ARTICLE 10 : ~~ _ Section 10 - 101 #4 -- This section should state that the development schedule shall indicate the approximate starting date and the approximate completion date. These dates should only be used as a • general guideline. Section 10 - 101 #6 C -- "Sufficient" amount of usable open space should be~defined. Section 10 - 102 #1 C and E -- These sections should state that deed restrictions on single family residential subdivisions shall crn~ly with the standards set by the Federal Housing Administration and that a copy shall be furnished to the City of La Porte prior to filling the deed restrictions of record. However, the review by the city attorney of deed restrictions should be deleted because the standards required by the Federal Housing Administration would assure quality deed restrictions. Section 10 - 103 -- The heading of this section should indicate that it pertains to planned unit developments. Further it should state whether or not these regulations pertain to PLID's in PIID Districts or PIID's in other districts. Section 10 - 103 #4 E 1 -- This section should state that grass may be considered as a surfacing material. Section 10 - 104 -- The heading of this section should indicate that it pertains to PIID's. • ~ s - • Section 10 - 201 #4 -- The 1 year limitation on conditional use permits should be extended to a three - five years. Section 10 - 302 #7 -- Air-conditioning cooling structures and condensers should be allowed in side yards. Section 10 - 603 -- The resurfacing of an existing facility should not require any further approval. Section 10 - 605 -- Parking should be allowed in all setback areas. Section 10 - 605 #10 -- This section should be deleted. There is no need for the 5' strip surrounding parking areas. It will not - effectively enhance the looks of parking areas and will be a constant maintenance problem. Farther the curb surrounding the entire parking area is unnecessary. Q11fi~Ti'S Ct~1 ARTICLE 11: Section 11 - 101 -- Land owners 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. Section I1 - 102 -- This section should be deleted per the cornnents under Section 11 - 101. • Section 11 - 606 #2 C 2 -- Unnecessary hardship should be defined to include economic hardship as well as physical hardship. Section 11 - 612 -- The reapplication period should be shortened to six months from the date of the original denial. • i,~~. ,~ .ti • August 29, 1985 Hon. Andrew Wilson, Chairman La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission City Hall La Porte* Texas Dear Andy: I will surely appreciate it if you will have page one of the Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission of August 15, 1985 corrected to include my name as one of the seven speakers that evening. I did sign up and speak. Correction is also in order, I believe, on pageeight, line.twenty- seven. I did not indicate I did not with to speak to the Comm- ission. I said I wished to speak in my proper order of signing up rather than as requested to speak by IV'ir..Smith. I will also appreciate it very much if ,you will have included in the Minutes the objections I stated to R-3: 1. It allows large apart;:~ent complexes in areas with • single family homes. At present the two types of residential are geographically separated in La Porte for the most part. 2. The list of permitted uses and the density in the "~ proposed R-3 sounds like it would be a shabby, un- happy place to live, perhaps a slum. 3, Group Care Facilities (defined Sec.. 3 100, Vo1.2, Page 12, Comp. Flan) can or may be (among other in- appropriate things for a residential neighborhood) half-way houses for drug addicts. This in a family neighborhood with permitted homes, schools, parks, playgrounds and, presumably, children. 4. If an R-1 or R-2 is rezoned to R-3, or has an R-3 implanted within ifs area, it will reduce greatly the quality of liv ~~g for the people in the adjacent homes remaining R l,~as well as in the newly created R-3. (Shovrn Vol. 1, Lx::ibit 2, Comprehensive Flan) I am-sorry I was not able to make myself clear. I did not mean anybody would be likely to start an R-3 from scratch. I meant to ~~oint out it was such a bad combination it would be bad to put one in an existing R-1 or R-2 district. I hope there v:ill~ never be any R-3, as proposed, in La Forte at all. • page 2 .er.. hrd_•i~v ~~ilson .. ` i ~~ I will appreciate it very nuch if you will correct the l~~inutes and • if you will include the reasons stated here and on August 15 for my objecting to R-3o Sincerely, ~~~~h Adair Sullivan 1520 Roscoe St, La Porte, Texas ?7571 • • ~~ R • MEMORANDUM TO: Andy Wilson, Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission, CLP FROM: David A. Paulissen, Zoning Administrator, CLP John Jo erns, 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 Ordinanc e, 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 City 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 comprehensive 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 Members 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 Commisssion 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) 2) !'r 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 Comm ercial motor v ehicles 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 resid ential 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. ~~ 1 _ ~i Fence: o ~ Del' Citizen comment indicated that th's definition should include wroua r i ;on ences or acce~ta le steel_ mesh fences. The definition of fence relates specifically to decorative or security fences placed on residential, commercial, light ~ f Chairman Wilson and Members 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 U 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 Table B__(Indus~ial) _inclusion of regulatory material in the definition section of the Ordinance would be inappropr~ t` ~ ~~ Lam- ~Lu~ ~ ..~~~~ 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. G Chairman Wilson and Members of Commission City of LaPorte 6) ~~~~ ~~ ~4 ~ ,7 ~~ u D ~; ~ }~ ~ • fi X ~~ 7) Page 4 ANALYSIS: Include a d efinition of loading berth, consistent with the definition currently found in Ordinance 780. Section 2 - 7 0 3 : ~ - f -~,~,L~- ~-tic/}' ~~-O 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 he 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 -stuff would--recommend that the current decision rule as applied in Ordinance 780- Section 9105 continue to be applied. The Cu~•~•ent 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. 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 Ord finance, unlike 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, ~ f Chairman Wilson and Members of the Commission ' City 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 Ord inance. . / 8) ~ S ecton 4-103 - -- ^;y Citizen comment i~d-icates that this section, --which applies to-____ setbacks in the case of through lots, does not state whether p the minimum setback of twent (20) feet a 1 ies to the r a (y Y p p e r I" ~'~n yard or the front yard. Again, this is a matter of administration p~r~' ` 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 n 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 resid ential district. 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 Comm ercial setbacks of twenty (20) feet in the recently passed Development Ord inance. ANALYSIS: In furtherance of the objectives set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, it is recommended that there be no change to this section. l~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 G • Chairman Wilson and Members 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: F3oth 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 he a reasonable distance, based upon current fire code practise and based upon the requirement of 20U 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. ~ i Chairman Wilson and Members of the Commission City of LaPorte Page 7 Accessory, permissable, and conditional uses allowed in the M~ 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 def fined, no change would be recommended based upon the comment. 13) 1/Section 5-600: Citizen comment indicates that a definition of single family ~.~ dwelling special lot is needed. Section 5-600 Table A (Resi- D ~ dential) specifies which uses are liable in the various resi- ;~ ~ /n, „N(~ Pdential districts, and it should be noted that single family ly /v ~) ~~ dwelling special lot is a use permitted in R-2, R-3, and MH i" 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, 00~ square feet. Attention to Section- 5-7a0 -- Table B (Residential) will show that the miminum pro osed lot p area for a single family dwelling special lot is 4,500 square feet. In our current Ordinance, provision is made for down C 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 Iv`}~ 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 o ~ ~^ of less than 6, 000 square feet but greater than 4, 500 square feet. D ~(~' 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 1"~\ 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 Members of the Commission City of LaPorte ~y4~ Y ~ ~J ~`~,y i~~ Page 8 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 be 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 di_s.trict_ 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 permissable 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 1 imitation to forty-five (45) feet for dup- lexes, townhouses, quadraplexes, and multiple family dwelling units according to citizen comment. ~_~ The e t citizen comment on Table B 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 subj ect of resi- dential density received exhaustive coverage and debate by the Steering Committee. Review of the Citizen Committee Report, together 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 • f f Chairman Wilson and Members 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,_Tab~e_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. ~/7~ Section 5-800 C : '- ~L4~~~ ~ ` 26 _ Z 7 ~~ 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 peL-rnit • Chairman Wilson and Members of the Commission City of LaPorte Page 10 • procedure, and particularly would deal with residential PUD's, or manufactured housing- parks within resid ential neighborhoods, or MH districts, respectively. Since the conditional use permit procedure specif ically 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 subjected to the Conditional Use Permit procedure. ANALYSIS: Leave this section as is. Section 6-500: ~'~ C~ Citizen comment indicates that the a maximum height in Neighbor- , hood Commercial districts should be increased to 45 feet from ~ ~~ ~J~' the presently proposed 35 feet. The proposed change of 35 feet '~ ~ to 45 feet would not adversely effect any use established in ~' the Comprehensive-- ~l-a-~r-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 hood ed prevent the light source from being visable from or residence. This requirement should remain there is some liability involved to the City with removal of this requirment. or a as the 1~) 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 screened to right-of-way written as ~ f Chairman Wilson and Members 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. Zoning should carefully consider the goals of the comprehensive plan for screening versus the pratical aspects of the application of this section and make a decision +~ therefrom. 19) Section 8-200: Citizen comment ind-icae~s that clarification is necessary on ---- which rules apply to a P~. 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 f~a with in the ordinance are quite detailed and specific. Carefull /U b ~ 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 ;Y in that P. U. D. zone. This is different from material covered " 0 ~~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 eittler a• • Chairman Wilson and Members 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 Eind 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 peL-mit, these high-impact uses will not be allowed to continue indefinitely, but rather will force the developer to keep in • Chairman 64ilson a~ Members of the City of LaPorte Commissior~ 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. Addi- 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 ~~r~it- 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 he 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 fora 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 Ordinance. LJ • Chairman Wilson ar~lembers 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 1U-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 ~Q ~ other sections in the P. U. D. area the term "suff icient" is used to allow the developer to have increased flexibility which is one of the basic advantages 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. ~~ n as is or add a ual if ication to ANALYSIS: Leave this sectlo q this section that relates the term "suff icient open space" to general compliance with the open space requirements outlined elsewhere in the ordinance. 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- . meets as they may appear elsewhere in this document. As deed ' Chairman Wilson ~ Members 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 be contained within these deed restrictions. ANALYSIS: Leave this section as written. 2 7) Section 10 -10 3 : - ~N,~,c-n/~ '~v ~~~ 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: Eor purposes of clarity, add the title material requested. _ ____ _____ 28) Section 10-104: Citizen comm ent 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 cool ing 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 side yards. Modern technology has, however, resulted in a much quieter unit that is usually not of. f ens ive to the neighbors. It should also be noted that some floorplans of C Chairman Wil som City of LaPorte an Members of the Commission 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, pit 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 requirements, the said cooling structures or equipment can be located in the side yard, to the extent that the required setback is maintained from the cooling structure equipment to the property 1 ine. ANALYSIS: Amend this section to allow air conditioning cooling structures and con ensers,in required s'de yards. {~ 7~~ 31) Section 10 - 6 0 3 : l.~h.Z~~'~'~vUY ' C~, r _~~~J -- --- 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 o a ertif ied 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 as 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 new design standards for parking lots that are to be resurfaced. 32. Section 10-605: Citizen comment indicates that this section, which presc:-ibes design standards or requirements acsessory to parking under this • " ~ Chairman Wilson Members of the Commissi~ ' • 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 whol• 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. n The design standards and criteria established in this ordinance o,JG',_ are much more liberal than our current parking design standards and requirements. Further, from a standpoint of legal liablity, 1 the City of La Porte must require driveway and parking lot design 4/' to specifically mitigate the chances of vehiculuar accidents so 1 that the City of La Porte would not be in a liability posture in y,J the case of accidents that could be attributed to poor driveway ~ design. .J ~, ANALYSIS: Do not amend section 10-605 of the Ordinance. 33 .Section 11-101: Citizen imput on this section indicates that developers issued building peL?nits prior to the effective date of this ordinance fl..~, should be allowed to continue their construction as per the )(~,~J 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 ord finance'. 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 he issued a new building permit prior to subsequent commencement of work. It should be noted that this language is copied verbatim 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 an Members 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 11-606(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 "unneccesa~-y 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- -~ia~'-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 11-61 2: 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 Ordinance 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 the 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 a~ Members of the Commission City of LaPorte Page 19 which might adversely impact the R-1 zone property values in suc h cases. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to place high density residential developments into a high density 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 Steering Committee ratified the sentiments of the Planners and the Comprehensive Plan by suggesting that a high density resid ential district 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 resid ential 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 tin 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 Comprehensive 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 a 7embers of .the Commission City of LaPorte ~ Page 20 are not located so as to provid e the highest and best use of - certain property; that when Greenway Corridors are located by the Comprehensive Plan on the zoning map, that the City of La Porte should 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 included in the Ordinance. Further, the Ordinance contains detailed and complex requirements regarding said Corridors. These requirements need to be discussed very carefully by the Planning and Zoning Commission and a determination needs to be made regarding the relationship of these Ordinance sections to the goals established in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehen- sive Plan establishes city-wide networks for open space, recrea- tional facilities, parkland, and conservation needs. If these goals are to be adopted as desirable by the City Council, provi- sions should be made for parkland location, open spaces, recrea- tional facilities, and conservation areas and other areas of scenic preservation on the map and within the text of the Zoning Ordinance. The Steering Committee, based upon the recomendation from the planning consultants, adopted these objectiv es as sound. The Planning and Zoning Commission, when it passed the Open Apace and Pedestra_in__ System Plan, the Recreational Facilities Plan, and the Beautification and Conservation Plan also adopted inclusion of these amenities and needs as a litigimate goal for the City of La Porte. The Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map as proposed attempts to provide for the above-mentioned goals and needs, and also attempts to establish locations for these am eni- ties. As proposed, Greenway Corridors are locations of parks, • conservation areas and related open spaces upon certain desig- Hated zoning 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 residential to industrial. Maintenance 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 maintenance responsibility. ANALYSIS: Greenway Corridors need to be defined in the Ordinance. All Greenway Corridors should be privately owned and subject to the setback requirement, except for Greenway Corridors located adjacent to single family residential 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. In 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 ~_(embers of the Committee City of LaPorte Page 21 Requirement of the City of La Porte Development Ordinance and would also receive a density bonus in the Zoning Ordinance. The Greenway Corridor may become a public Greenway Corridor when and• if it is designated as such on the zoning map. Public Greenway Corridors are to be acquired by the City of La Porte and main- tained by the City of La Porte. For the purpose of this section all commercial and industrial uses will be treated in the same manner as single-family residential uses. The City of La Porte should purchase and maintain or allow the development to proceed without meeting the setback requirements accept in zoning map designated conservation districts. 40) Parkway Corridor Citizen comment indicates that the twenty (20) foot setback on property adjacent to designated parkway corridors is inappropriate. There will be affect of these requirements until and unless parkways are designated on the zoning map. The intent of the comprehensive plan and designated parkway and setbacks adjacent to parkways is to achieve city beautification and to establish an image of enviromental quality and concern with the City of La Porte. Entry threshholds are an introgal part of the parkway system as discussed--in -tire city throughofare and- beautification - -- plans passed by the City of La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission. This setback is to be landscaped and maintained by the respective property owners . ANALYSIS: If the Planning and Zoning Commission wishes to achieve the objectives of the Comprehensive plan the Ordinance sections regarding parkways and parkway corridors should be retained. If• however, these requirements prove to be too costly then they should be removed. 41) Parking and Curb Requirements: Citizen imput indicates that the term curb needs to be defined to allow convenitial curb stops as well as poured curbing if desired. ANALYSIS: Staff sees no conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and this addition to the definition of section to allow curb stops as opposed to solid curbs. This addition will make parking lot drainage substaintally easier to obtain and less costly. 42) Additional Setback Ad 'acent to Major Throughofares: Citizen imput indicates that the requirement of an additional five foot to ten foot setback of a structure from a major through- ofare should be deleted. Review of this requirement indicates that proper throughofare planning as contained in the througho- fare plan removes the need for future right-of-way acquisition and widening . • Chairman Wilson a~.lembers of the Comm iss io~ City of LaPorte Page 22 ` 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 at 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 `~ `J ~.--~ ~ • ~ • c G~ S \\ 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 City 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 comprehensive 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 identified, 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 ~s~ •~ ~ \ . Chairman Wilson and Mem~rs City' of LaPorte of the Commission 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 Liaht 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 motar 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: p ~ 'W'" Citizen comment indicated that th's definition should include G-p~y~ wrou 'ro.n ences or accepta le steel mesh fences. The definition of fence relates specifically to decorative or security fences placed on residential, commercial, light 1" •~ c • Chairman Wilson and Members 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 Ordina!.n~ce~ would be inappropriate. ~' ~ tom- ~~ ~ -Uri-c~..d'Ri o~p~~ ~ ~~ 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. • .. ~c Chairman Wilson and Members of Commission City of LaPorte 6) ~~~ ~D ~%,..~ c 7) • •c Page 4 ANALYSIS: Include a definition of loading berth, consistent with the definition currently found in Ordinance 780. Section 2 - 7 0 3 : ~ -~-~,1,12•~- ~r-~' ~`O 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 he 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 he 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. 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, unlike 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, c • • c ,. Chairman Wilson and Members of the Commission City of LaPorte Page 5 n 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 ion ing 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 p~ and has little impact upon obj ectives as set forth in the Com rehensive Plan exce P pt 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. 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 Ord finance. ANALYSIS: In furtherance of the objectives set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, it is recommended that there be no change to this section. 1-0) Secton 5-404 (2)(a)(2): Citizen comment indicates that this section, which pertains • the prox imity of R3 structures from a public or private street ~C ~ •Chairman Wilson and Members 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 Comm ercial, 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) Sect ion 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. ~c •~ Chairman Wilson and Members of the Commission City 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) 1/Section 5-600: ` Citizen comment indicates that a definition of single family ~.~ dwelling special lot is needed. Section 5-600 Table A (Resi- 4 ) dential) specifies which uses are 1 iable in the various resi- ~c~ ~ „I~(~, Pdential districts, and it should be noted that single family /`~ !7) dwelling special lot is a use permitted in R-2, R-3, and MH t' 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 C 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 1 ine. ANALYSIS: Include a definition of single family dwelling special lot to mean a single family dwelling unit on a lot area Q ^ of less than 6, 000 square feet but greater than 4, 500 square feet. 14) Section 5-700, Table B (Residential): S ~ 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 • • c • Chairman Wilson and Members of the Commission City of LaPorte ~}4~ ~pY C 7 ~~ •~ Page 8 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 be 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 permissable 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, tbwnhouses, quadraplexes, and multiple family dwelling units according to citizen comment. ~, The next citizen comment on Table B 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 Comprehensiv e Plan, reveal mixed ideas regarding density figures. The issue is of major importance when correlated to La Po rte'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 c • •~ Chairman Wilson and Members 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. " 'L Section 5-800 C: ~^^ ~ ~ ~ 26 ~ Z "~ .1xs~ 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 ~c ~~- • Chairman Wilson and Members of the Commission City of LaPorte Page 10 procedure, and particularly would deal with residential PUD's, or manufactured housing parks within resid ential 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. ,~a ~~~,~~~ ;4~ ANALYSIS: Leave this section as is. 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 prevent the light source from being visable from or residence. This requirement should remain there is some liability involved to the City with removal of this requirment. 1~3) Section 6/600 (B)5: or a as the screened to right-of-way written as • Citizen comment indicates that the additional five foot set back required behind the screening fence for every foot of height of ~c •c Chairman Wilson and Members 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 Zoning should carefully consider the goals of the comprehensive plan for screening versus the pratical aspects of the application of this section and make a decision ~~ therefrom. 19) Section 8-200: Citizen comment indicates that clarification is necessary on which rules apply to a ~. 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 /0 d 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 ~y, in that P. U. D. zone. This is different from material covered , 0 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 Members 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 • peL-rnit, these high-impact uses will not be allowed to continue indefinitely, but rather will force the developer to keep in Chairman Cit f 44ilson L P an e~~rs of ~ the Commission ~ ~ y o a orte 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. Addi- 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 he 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 Ordinance. • • C1 ~' Chairman Wilson and~mDers 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 d efinite 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 1U-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 qQ other sections in the P. U. D. area the term "sufficient" is I used to allow the developer to have increased flexibility which is one of the basic advantages in developing a P. U. D. Note / that in other areas of this section the quote is made that the 1 P. U. D. should be in substantial complaince with the regulation \ / n of the uses that will be developed within the parameters of the `~ ~?. 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 nonspecific 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 as is or add a qualification to this section that relates the term "sufficient open space" to general compliance with the open space requirements outlined elsewhere in the ordinance. 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 M~~ers of a the Commissio City of LaPorte ~ n Page 15 restrictions are legal docum ents 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 be contained within these deed restrictions. ANALYSIS: Leave this section as written. 27 ) Section 10-103: - ~t~iti~ ~ G 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 Comm ent 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 side yards. Modern technology has, however, resulted in a much quieter unit that is usually not offensive to the neighbors. It should also be noted that some floo rplans of Chairman Wilsom .City of LaPorte C and embers of the Commission • 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, pit 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 requirements, the said cooling structures or equipment can be located in the side yard, to the extent that the required setback is maintained from the cooling structure equipment to the property 1 ine. ANALYSIS: Amend this section to allow air conditioning cooling structures and con ensers~in required s'de yards. 31) Section 10 - 6 0 3 : ~ ~,vL/~~~ ~ ~ ~~ 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 o a ertif ied 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 as 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 new design 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 Cit of Wilson a M~ LaP t ~ ,oers of the Commissio ~ ~ y or e Page 17 ordinance be amended to allow parking "in all set-back areas". This section of the ordinance does not prohibit parking in any j)~ particular set back area, and in deed the ordinance as a whole ~J 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 liberal 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 ord finance.' ANALYSIS: Leave this section as written. 4) 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 verbatim • n from the standard building permits currently issued by the City J" of La Porte under the terms of our current ordinance no. 780, the Southern Standard Building Code that has been adopted by the • + r Chairman Wilson and embers of the Commission • City of LaPorte Page 18 City Council of the City of La Porte, and the proposed ordinanc e. 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 11-606(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 r ,~ or property owner's own actions. The City of La Porte would VC 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. (~ Section 11-612: yI 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 Ordinance 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 the 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 in the proposed Ordinance is there might be cases in which traditional low density single the high density residential zone not necessary, particularly since these districts would be adjoining family detached residential zones, r Chairman Wilson a~Members 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 density 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 Steering Committee ratified the sentiments of the Planners and the Comprehensive Plan by suggesting that a high density resid ential district 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 resid ential 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 Comprehensive 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 an e~ ers of the Commission ~' City of LaPorte ~ • ~ Page 20 ' are not located so as to provid e the highest and best use of certain property; that when Greenway Corridors are located by the • Comprehensive Plan on the zoning map, that the City of La Porte should 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 included in the Ordinance. Further, the Ordinance contains detailed and complex requirements regarding said Corridors. These requirements need to be discussed very carefully by the Planning and Zoning Commission and a determination needs to be made regarding the relationship of these Ordinance sections to the goals established in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehen- sive Plan establishes city-wide networks for open space, recrea- tional facilities, parkland, and conservation needs. If these goals are to be adopted as desirable by the City Council, provi- sions should be made for parkland location, open spaces, recrea- tional facilities, and conservation areas and other areas of scenic preservation on the map and within the text of the Zoning Ordinance. The Steering Committee, based upon the recomendation from the planning consultants, adopted these objectives as sound. The Planning and Zoning Commission, when it passed the Open Apace and Pedestrain System Plan, the Recreational Facilities Plan, and the Beautification and Conservation Plan also adopted inclusion of these amenities and needs as a litigimate goal for the City of La Porte. The Zoning Ordinanc a and Zoning Map as proposed attempts to provide for the above-mentioned goals and needs, and also attempts to establish locations for these am eni- • ties. As proposed, Greenway Corridors are locations of parks, conservation areas and related open spaces upon certain d esig- nated zoning 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 residential to industrial. Maintenance 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 maintenance responsibility. ANALYSIS: Greenway Corridors need to be defined in the Ordinance. All Greenway Corridors should be privately owned and subject to the setback requirement, except for Greenway Corridors located. adjacent to single family residential 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. In 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 ~ ' ~~~ ~ . ~~ 9L ~~~ ,~-~ ten- 1R--G.~ Y Chairman Wilson a embers of the Committee - City of LaPorte ~ ~ ~ Page 21 Requirement of the City of La Porte Development Ordinance and would also receive a density bonus in the Zoning Ordinance. The Greenway Corridor may become a public Greenway Corridor when and if it is designated as such on the zoning map. Public Greenway Corridors are to be acquired by the City of La Porte and main- tained by the City of La Porte. For the purpose of this section all commercial and industrial uses will be treated in the same manner as single-family residential uses. The City of La Porte should purchase and maintain or allow the development to proceed without meeting the setback requirements accept in zoning map designated conservation districts. 40) Parkway Corridor Citizen comment indicates that the twenty (20) foot setback on property adjacent to designated parkway corridors is inappropriate. There will be affect of these requirements until and unless parkways are designated on the zoning map. The intent of the comprehensive plan and designated parkway and setbacks adjacent to parkways is to achieve city beautification and to establish an image of enviromental quality and concern with the City of La Porte. Entry threshholds are an introgal part of the parkway system as discussed in the city throughofare and beautification plans passed by the City of La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission. This setback is to be landscaped and maintained by the respective property owners . • ANALYSIS: If the Planning and Zoning Commission wishes to achieve trie objectives of the Comprehensive plan the Ordinance sections • regarding parkways and parkway corridors should he retained. If however, these requirements prove to be too costly then they should be removed. 41) Parking and Curb Requirements: Citizen imput indicates that the term curb needs to be defined to allow convenitial curb stops as .well as poured curbing if desired. ANALYSIS: Staff sees no conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and this addition to the definition of section to allow curb stops as opposed to solid curbs. This addition will make parking lot drainage substaintally easier to obtain and less costly. 42) Additional Setback Adjacent to Major Throughofares: Citizen imput indicates that the requirement of an additional five foot to ten foot setback of a structure from a major through- ofare should be deleted. Review of this requirement indicates that proper throughofare planning as contained in the througho- fare plan removes the need for future right-of-way acquisition and widening . C `, Chairman Wilson an ~..oers of the Commission City of LaPorte ~ • Page 22 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 instead of solid curbs and only where the parking lot adjoins public right-of-ways. Also, only require the five foot setback on parking areas adjacent to public right-of-ways. Note that no landscaping requirements are 'mention in this five foot setback area. Respectfully submitted, John D. Armstrong David Paulissen John Joerns r 1 ~J