HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-21-1991 Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission• T ~ ~`~
DISTRIBUTION/APPROVAL
OF NIINUTES
PLANNING~& ZONING MEETING
L
Minutes taken at meeting:
Minutes typed by secretary:
Preliminary draft copy to
appropriate Director:
Final draft copy typed:
Draft copy to Assistant
City Manager's office:
Final draft to City Secretary
for distribution to City Council:
Minutes approved & signed
at P & Z Meeting:
File original minutes:
.~-~/- 9/
n~
3 -aa- yi
3- as-9~
.~-a~-9i
3-a~-9~
~-$-9/
~ /8-9i
~ ..~s
~~
n~~
At end of one (1) calendaz yeaz approved minutes
forwazded to City Secretary for filing in vault.
3/91
,,
Ag~t. ~~'~~~ ~~NA~E~'
n
L~
MINUTES
• PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 21, 1991
Members Present: Chairman Inge Browder, Commissioners Paul Schaider, Betty
Waters, Lola Phillips, Eugene Edmonds, Wayne Anderson, Doug
Martin _
Members Absent: None
Citv Staff Present: Assistant City Manager John Joerns, City Inspector Mark Lewis,
Community Development Secretary Nina Browning, Assistant
City Attorney John Armstrong.
Others Present: Mark McKim and Jack Phillips
1) CALL TO ORDER
Meeting -was called to order by Inge Browder at 6:00 PM.
2) APPROVE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 21, 1991, PUBLIC HEARING AND
REGULAR MEETING.
• A motion was made by Betty Waters and seconded by Doug Martin to approve the
minutes as submitted. All were in favor and the motion passed.
3) DISCUSS ITEMS RELATING TO THE 1991 REVIEW OF ZONING
ORDINANCE NO. 1501.
Mr. Joerns began by stating that the staff would adopt a "panel form" for the
discussion of the review (as used earlier for the adoption of the zoning map and the
original text of Ord. # 1501.) This means that Mark Lewis would go over the items
and if need be John Armstrong and/or Mr. Joerns would interject comments.
Mark Lewis began the discussion explaining the reasons for an annual review to
determine whether the Zoning Ordinance has become deficient, obsolete, and
inadequate for any reason. Mr. Lewis stated that other reasons including the
following would cause a need for a review:
(1) defects in the original text,
(2) defects in the zoning map,
(3) deficiencies created by improper or lax administration and subsequent
amendments to the original ordinance which are inconsistent, conflicting or
ambiguous,
(4) inconsistency with State Statutes or judicial decisions.
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
• Minutes of 3-21-91
Page 2 of 5
Mr. Lewis stated there is also another group of issues which will be raised during
the course of this review. These issues are neither minor nor trivial but, rather will
affect the City's Comprehensive Plan and therefore the course of La Porte's future
development. Included in these issues is a requested amendment to current Business
Industrial regulations and consideration of possible adverse impact of the Zoning
Ordinance on the Old Main Street commercial district. During consideration of
these latter issues, the Commission should use as its guide, the Comprehensive Plan
of the City of La Porte. Impact on the plan should be carefully considered in
making any decision or recommendation regarding the Zoning Ordinance.
Since not all current members were sitting on the Commission during the initial
development of the Plan, Mr. Armstrong gave a brief history and overview of the
plan. Mr. Armstrong stated that the Comprehensive Plan is one that keeps pace
with the City of La Porte, and serves as a guide to the development of the City.
It is the Commission's charge, in its role as Planning Commission, to maintain the
integrity and viability of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Armstrong suggested that
the Commissioners review the Comprehensive Plan and become familiar with it, as
this would aid them in the review of the Zoning Ordinance.
At this time Mr. Lewis began the review:
• I. SECTION 6-400, TABLE B; RESIDENTIAL:
Add the wording in Footnote #3 - "located in a rear yard". It would now read "The
minimum setback adjacent to any utility easement located in a rear ,yard, shill be
three feet (3').
The Commission had no problems with this wording change.
II. SECTION 6-400. TABLE A. COMMERCIAL:
The creation of a new listing: Dog Grooming Without Overnight Boarding -
permitted in a GC zone.
The second table listing requiring consideration is SIC #473. This listing is currently
permitted within GC •zone.
Several questions were raised on these items and further discussion/research is
needed. The Commission directed staff to research the issue further and present the
information at a future meeting.
•
® •
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
• Minutes of 3-21-91
Page 3 of 5
III. SECTION 10-200.5 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS:
The requested clarification to Large Lot Residential accessory building requirements
deals with building size. Currently reads up to 2,000 square feet and must be located
at least 30' from property line... Requested change would read Accessory buildings
with a floor area in excess of one thousand 1000 s uare feed must be located at
30' feet......
The Commission after discussion had no problem with this change.
IV. SECTION 10-304.2: SWIMMING POOLS. SPAS AND HOT TUBS:
The City has adopted a more recent edition of the swimming pool code, as this
adopted code will likely be updated again within the next twelve months, staff would
suggest deleting any specific ordinance reference and rather, adopt the following
language -underlined change:
Fenc :Swimming pools, spas and hot tubs shall be enclosed within a fence at least
four feet (4') in height. Fences shall comply with all requirements of the currently
• adopted edition of the Standard Swimming Pool Code published bx the Southern
Building Code Congress International.
The Commission after discussion had no problem with thie change.
V. SECTION 10-500 GENERAL FENCING AND LANDSCAPING
REQUIREMENTS:
Section 10-507.2 prohibits fencing "within the front yazd setback of any industrial
establishment." Staff has had several requests from commercial establishments
wishing to fence the entire perimeter of their properties. The requests have
primarily come from contractors wishing to fence their yards for security purposes.
Should the present industrial fencing restrictions be extended to commercial
properties as well?
Wording to clarify the intent follows....within the required landscape portion of any
yard or the front yazd setback of any commercial or industrial establishment.
The Commission after discussion had no problem with the wording clarification.
n
U
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
• Minutes of 3-21-91
Page 4 of 5
VI. SECTION 7-600. INDUSTRIAL TABLE B:
This section regulates setbacks within Industrial Zones. The Commission has been
required to consider amending the setback provisions of this Table as they apply to
Business Industrial uses. The current setback requirements are as follows:
Front - 50 feet; Rear - 40 feet; Side - 30 feet
Requested setbacks are as follows:
Front - 30 feet; Rear - 15 feet; Side - 15 feet.
In considering this request, it is necessary to examine the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan as it applies to Business Industrial use zones. In developing the
Comprehensive Plan, public hearing input and citizen surveys revealed that a primary
desire of La Porte's resident citizens is for an improved residential environment.
One of the steps necessary for protecting and upgrading neighborhoods is "buffering"
between residential and industrial areas. Another function of Business Industrial
setback relates to the types of uses permitted in BI zones. The majority of BI uses
involve some aspect of warehousing and therefore some degree of heavy truck traffic.
Business Industrial setback areas are intended to be utilized for truck parking and
maneuvering.
In summation, the thrust of this argument is as follows. In order to accommodate
the on-site parking, loading dock and maneuvering requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance, setbacks comparable to those presently in effect would be necessary on
most tracts of property. The alternative would be "congestion of the public right-
of-way" which the Ordinance seeks to avoid. So finally, the question returned to
once again is this, "would 15 feet side and rear Business Industrial setbacks provide
an adequate buffer between areas of industrial and residential development? Also
would these setbacks allow for adequate on site manuvering?
After lengthy discussion and comments from Mr. Mark McKim (making the setback
change request) the Commission tabled the item for more discussion and research.
The next workshop was set for April 18, 1991 at 6:00 PM.
•
® •
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
~, Minutes of 3-21-91
Page 5 of 5
IV. ADJOURN
A motion was made by Eugene Edmonds and seconded by Lola Phillips to adjourn.
All were in favor and the motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
a.~
Nina Browning, Secret
Community Development
Approved on this the 18th day of April 1991
In Browder, Chairman
3/22/91
•
~99~
ANNUAL ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW
INTRODUCTION TO THE 1991
ANNUAL ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW
In undertaking the 1991 Annual Zoning Ordinance Review, it is
probably wise to begin by reviewing the Ordinance's charge to the
Planning and Zoning commission which is found in Section 11-504 of
the Zoning Ordinance. This section states:
The Planning and Zoning commission is to conduct a
regular comprehensive review of this Ordinance, together
with the Development Ordinance of the City of La Porte,
the first review being six (6) months from the date of
adoption of this Ordinance, the second twelve (12) months
from the date of adoption, and thereafter an annual
review to determine whether the Ordinance has become
deficient, obsolete, and inadequate for any reason
including the following:
1. Defects in the original text.
2. Defects in the zoning map.
3. Deficiencies created by improper or lax administration
and subsequent amendments to the original ordinance which
are inconsistent, conflicting or ambiguous.
4. Inconsistency with State Statutes or jUdicial decisions.
Much of this review will be concerned with items of the type
noted above; namely updating code references and clarifying
ambiguities. These are the routine "housecleaning" items which
must be attended to in order to insure that the Zoning Ordinance
does not become "deficient, obsolete, and inadequate." Therefore,
the Commission is asked to remember that even though some of the
issues raised may seem minor or trivial, attending to them is
necessary.
There is also another group of issues which will be raised
during the course of this review. These issues are neither minor
nor trivial but, rather will affect the City's Comprehensive Plan
and therefore the course of La Porte's future development into the
next century. Included in these issues is a requested amendment
to current Business Industrial regulations. Also being raised, is
the issue adverse impact of the Zoning Ordinance on the old Main
Street commercial district. Consideration of these and like issues
is a charge given to the Commission in Ordinance Section 11-503.
This section, in part, states:
Page 2 of 5
The Planning and Zoning commission shall have
the following powers and duties:
To cause studies to be made by City staff or
other professionals which project plans for
the improvement of the City, with a view toward
its future development and extension, and to
recommend to the City Council all matters for
the development and advancement of the City's
facilities, layout and appearance, and to
perform all duties imposed on the City Planning
and Zoning commission by the statutes of the
state.
During consideration of this latter group of issues, the
Commission should use as its guide, the Comprehensive Plan of the
City of La Porte. Impact on the plan should be carefully
considered in making any decision or recommendation regarding the
Zoning Ordinance. As not all current members were sitting on the
Commission during the initial development of the Plan, a brief
history and overview of the plan will be presented below.
In the early 1980's, La Porte found itself developing in a
somewhat chaotic and "unplanned" manner. Many residential
neighborhoods, the bayfront area and older commercial areas were
deteriorating. Approximately one hundred amendments, many of them
as a result of speculative rezonings, had been added to the Zoning
Ordinance in effect at the time (Ordinance 780).
In response to this situation, (quoting now from the
introduction to the Comprehensive Plan)...
The City of La. Porte, in an effort to manage future growth in
an orderly and rational manner, retained Turner Collie & Braden
Inc. in association with LWFW Inc. and Vernon G. Henry & Associates
to develop a Comprehensive Plan for La. Porte, Texas. The
Comprehensive Plan updates the existing Master Plan of La. Porte and
provides the basis for review of La. Porte · s existing zoning
ordinance and subdivision regulations. In addition, the
Comprehensive Plan provides the City with a general development
framework for:
Page 3 of 5
An interpretation of City Council policies and designs
that allows citizen feedback and permits the monitoring
and evaluation of the comprehensive Plan on a continuous
basis.
Orderly growth of the community instituting a high level
of environmental quality over the planning period.
Implementation priorities based on the community's
desired economic and demographic development.
A 5-year capital improvement program compatible with the
community'S economic capabilities and potential.
A tool for intergovernmental coordination and negotiation
of responsibilities and activities.
Flexibility to accommodate changing requirements over
time based on improved standards and goals as instituted
by local decision-makers and citizens.
A common reference source of information from which
subsequent development studies can be based.
This plan, which was presented in 1984, provides a detailed
analysis of:
Results of extensive citizen surveys regarding directions
for development of the City.
Population growth projections.
Roads, utilities and other infrastructure.
Geologic and geographic situation.
Historic growth patterns of both La Porte and
Southeastern Texas.
Existing and projected Industrial development.
Existing projected Commercial development.
Existing and projected residential development.
Page 4 of 5
All the above factors plus many others were synthesized into
a comprehensive and accurate picture of La Porte as it existed in
1984. Based on this "picture", a range of development options were
proposed. Then the City working with its consultants and citizens
chose a set of options that set a course for La Porte I s future
growth and development well into the next century. To summarize
this process, it is again appropriate to quote from the
Comprehensive Plan itself. This time from Volume III...
In preparing the Comprehensive Plan for the City of
La Porte, it was necessary to understand the growth
options that exist for the City and determine the wishes
of the citizenry with regard to future growth. Once
these options were defined and a derived growth plan
selected, a land-use mix was developed to encourage the
particular growth scenario. For example, if the City
wishes to be a bedroom community, then the Master Plan
would reflect a maximum of single-family residential and
a minimum of industrial land.
In order to develop the growth options for La Porte,
the following activities had to be undertaken.
A thorough understanding of the
current economic base and its
prospects for the future was
required. This is due to the face
that normally most economies are
expansions of existing industrial
bases with the concomitant growth of
supporting industries...
The next activity consisted of
understanding the overall regional
economy. The direction of the
growth of the Houston area economy
could provide opportunities for the
diversification of the La Porte
economy and would undoubtedly impact
the overall economy of the area.
It was necessary to understand the
unique assets that the City of La
Porte possessed and attempt to match
those assets with the needs of
particular industrial groups.
Page 5 of 5
An evaluation of the competitive
position of La Porte versus other
communities in the area was
undertaken.
Finally, once these growth options
had been defined it was necessary to
match these with the expectations of
the citizens of La Porte as
expressed in the survey taken at the
beginning of the planning effort...
It must be noted that the Comprehensive Plan is not a static,
rigid document but rather, one that is living and evolving so that
it keeps pace with the City of La Porte even as it serves a guide
to the city's development. It is the Commission's charge, in its
role as Planning Commission, to maintain the integrity and
viability of the Comprehensive Plan.
In order to properly fulfill this function, before
recommending any change to the Zoning Ordinance or Map, the
Planning Commission must first determine if the change is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and assess the impact of
that change to the Plan. If a change is determined to be in
conflict with the Plan, the Commission must determine whether the
need for that change is strong enough to warrant amending the
Plan. If the answer is no, it is not appropriate to recommend the
changes.
1991 ANNUAL REVIEW OF
ZONING ORDINANCE '1501
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
I.
Section 6-400. Table B: Residential (pgs 29-31):
Footnotes #3 of Section 5-700 states: "The minimum setback
adjacent to any utility easement shall be three feet (3')." The
intent of this footnote is to maintain a minimum setback between
primary structures and utility easements commonly located in rear-
yards of La Porte's subdivisions. Many of the same subdivisions
also have smaller, "single use" utility easements which are located
in side yards. Prior to the adoption of Ordinance 1501, these
easements were often used to provide required sideyard setbacks.
A strict reading of footnote #3 would require a setback of three
feet to be maintained from these easements.
In January of 1990, Fairmont Park Joint Venture appealed this
Ordinance interpretation. The Zoning Board of Adjustment granted
the appeal. Staff has complied with the Board's decision in the
review and approval of all subsequent building permit applications.
The Commission is being asked to review this section and
consider amending it as follows: (Changes are underlined).
3. The minimum setback adjacent to any utility easement
located in a rear yard. shall be three feet (3').
No portion of any building including projections of
any nature shall encroach into any utility easement
or vertical projection of the easement boundary.
Should it be determined that the intent of the Ordinance is
to require the additional setback adjacent to side-yard easements,
footnote #3 can be left in its present form.
II. Section 6-400. Table A. Commercial (pgs 37-40):
Consideration of two General Commercial Use listings is being
requested. The first of these listings is S.l.C. #0752. This
listing, which includes boarding and breeding kennels, has been
designated as a Conditional, General Commercial Use. This
designation was made in conjunction with the adoption of City'S
Kennel Ordinance (#1559). While the Conditional designation is
appropriate for kennels and most of the other activities covered
by this S.l.C. listing, one specific activity, "dog grooming" would
seem to be an appropriate permitted General Commercial Use. A way
to achieve this end would be by the creation of the following new
listing:
NC
GC
Dog Grooming without
overnight Boarding
*
P
Page 2 of 7
The second table listing requ1r1ng consideration is S.I.C.
#473. This listing is currently permitted within General
Commercial Zones. Specific uses covered by this listing include
shipping agents, customs clearance of freight, freight forwarding
and shipping document preparation.
During the past two years, three companies have located in
various General Commercial Zones within the City. All three of
these companies, Warren Trucking, Dynasty Transport and B-Right
Trucking applied for Zoning Permits as freight forwarders under
S.I.C. #4731. While all of these businesses do seem to function
as freight forwarders, they also have drawn a fairly large volume
of truck traffic off truck routes and into General Commercial
Zones. The primary source of traffic has been drivers detouring
on runs to and from the port in order to pick up or drop off
paperwork. Additionally, drivers, whether authorized to or not,
have tended to use the facilities as overnight parking lots for
trucks or trailers. The truck traffic has particularly been a
problem with the B-Right Facility which is located on North
Broadway, within one block of Main Street. As a relatively high
volume of truck traffic seems to go with these types of businesses,
it may be advisable to consider removing S.I.C. #473 from the
Commercial Use Tables entirely and relocating it to section 7-500,
Table A, Industrial. A suggested listing is:
BI
LI
HI
Arrangement for Freight
Transport (#473)
P
P
P
III. SECTION 10-200.5 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (PG 68)
This section deals with residential accessory buildings and
presently reads as follows:
No accessory building, or carport garage for
single family dwellings shall occupy more than
twenty-five percent (25%) of a rear yard, nor
exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet of
floor area.
Larqe Lot Residential Onl v: Accessory
buildings in single family residential large
lots may not exceed two thousand (2,000) square
feet of floor area, and must be located at
least thirty feet (30') from any property line,
and at least thirty feet (30') to the rear of
the primary structure.
Page 3 of 7
The second paragraph is intended to act as an exception to
the 1,000 square foot accessory building size limit. It allows
accessory buildings of up to 2,000 square feet to be located on
Large Lot Residential tracts and also sets a more stringent setback
requirement for the larger accessory buildings. The paragraph is
not intended to require a 30 foot setback for all accessory
buildings, only those that are over 1,000 square feet in size.
This is not made completely clear by the present language. The
following language would clarify the intent (changes are underlined
and highlighted).
Larqe Lot Residential Only: Accessory buildings in Single
Family Residential Large Lots may not exceed two thousand (2,000)
square feet of floor area. Accessory buildings with a floor area
in excess of one thousand (1.000 square feet must be located at
least thirty (30) feet from any property line, and at least thirty
feet from the rear of the primary structure.
IV. SECTION 10-304.2: SWIMMING POOLS. SPAS AND HOT TUBS (PG 7);
This paragraph deals with swimming pool fencing requirements
and references the "requirements of City of La Porte Ordinance
#1059. Ordinance #1059 which adopted an earlier edition of the
Standard Swimming Pool Code was in effect at the time of the Zoning
Ordinance's adoption. The City has subsequently adopted a more
recent edition of the swimming pool code. As this adopted code
will likely be updated again within the next twelve months, staff
would suggest deleting any specific ordinance reference and rather,
adopt the following language (changes are underlined).
Fences: Swimming pools, spas, and hot tubs shall be enclosed
within a fence at least four feet (4') in height.
Fences shall comply with all requirements of the currently ado~ted
edition of the Standard Swimminq Pool Code published by the
Southern Building Code Conqress International...
V.
SECTION 10-500 GENERAL FENCING AND
REQUIREMENTS (PGS 72-73):
LANDSCAPING
Subsection 10-507.2 prohibits fencing "within the front yard
setback of any industrial (staff's emphasis) establishment." Staff
has had several requests from commercial establishments wishing to
fence the entire perimeter of their properties. The requests have
primarily come from contractors wishing to fence their yards for
security purposes. Should the present industrial fencing
restrictions be extended to commercial properties as well? If so,
a clarification should be added.
Page 4 of 7
Wording to clarify the intent follows. (Change is underlined
and highlighted):...within the required landscape portion of any
yard or the front yard setback of any commercial or industrial
establishment.
VI. SECTION 7-600: INDUSTRIAL TABLE B (PGS 53 AND 54):
section 7-600, Table B regulates setbacks within Industrial
Zones. The Commission has been requested to consider amending,
the setback provisions of this Table as they apply to Business
Industrial uses. ( See Exhibit A). The current setback requirements
are listed below in the left hand column. The requested revisions
are listed on the right.
Current Setbacks
Reauested Setbacks
Front:
Rear:
Side:
50 feet
40 feet
30 feet
30 feet
15 feet
15 feet
The petitioner's stated reason for requesting this change is:
The present B-1 [Business
Industrial] guidelines, in their
practical effect, severely restrict
development in B-1 zones to only
large tracts of land. As a result,
smaller companies seeking to locate
to property that happens to lie
within B-1 zoning are faced with the
unfortunate choice of either moving
to a less restrictively zoned
property, which typically requires
a larger capital expenditure, or not
locating in La Porte.
In considering this request, it is necessary to examine the
intent of the Comprehensive Plan as it applies to Business
Industrial use zones. The following "capsules", which have been
excerpted from the Master Plan contained in Volume I of the City's
Comprehensive Plan, address various aspects of this issue.
Page 5 of 7
"The Master Plan... is intended to obtain the goals and
objectives established in the Comprehensive Plan and has been
designed specifically to...
Upgrade the economic and environmental realities of La
Porte
Promote La Porte as a residential community
Manage the development of heavy industrial activity
within the City limits
Focus on the needs and requirements of La Porte's
existing population
The Land Use component of the plan, in part states...
Distinctively different boundary conditions have been
established, of which an important portion is
constituted by heavy industrial areas.
Developed areas which are socially, economically and
environmentally different from one another have been
aggregated.
Finally, regarding Zoning/Land Use designations...
Business/Industrial - includes mul tistructured office
park development.
Business/Industrial buffers heavy industrial activity
primarily from residential development and is located
along high image areas.
In the course of developing the Comprehensive Plan, public
hearing input and citizen surveys revealed that a primary desire
of La Porte's resident citizens is for an improved residential
environment. One of the steps necessary for protecting and up-
grading neighborhoods is "buffering" between residential and
industrial areas. Buffering has in large part been accomplished
by means of Business Industrial Zones and PUD Zones wi th an
underlying Commercial/Industrial land use designation. A review
of the City's Zoning & Land Use Maps will illustrate both the
buffering and "high image" uses of the Business Industrial Zones.
If it is determined that the Business Industrial concept, as
established by the comprehensive Plan is sound, the function of
setbacks with B.I. Zones must be examined.
Page 6 of 7
Setbacks function in two ways in regards to buffering.
Firstly, as noted in the petitioner's letter, a relatively large
tract is required in order to achieve the maximum allowable lot
coverage of 50%. This has the direct effect of lowering
development densities adjacent to non-industrial areas with the
lower density providing a degree of buffering. The second
function comes into play in locations where residentially zoned
property abuts Business Industrial property. Footnote #2 of
section 7-601 states:
No buildings, parking areas, loading docks,
outside storage, or refuse containers will be
allowed in such setback areas. These areas
are to be landscaped with trees, shrubs and
ground cover, with a planting plan required to
be submitted and approved by the enforcement
officer.
The question that must be asked is, would the higher
densities and smaller landscaped areas (abutting residential zones)
provide an adequate buffer?
Another function of Business Industrial setback relates to
the types of uses permitted in B.I. Zones. The majority of
Business Industrial uses involve some aspect of warehousing and
therefore some degree of heavy truck traffic. Business Industrial
setback areas (except for specific exceptions such as discussed
above) are intended to be utilized for truck parking and
maneuvering.
In reviewing the parking requirements of Section 10-600 and
especially the off-street loading requirements of Section 10-700,
one major concept becomes apparent that is, the Zoning Ordinance
intention to "alleviate or prevent congestion of the public right-
of-way and so to promote the safety and general welfare of the
pUblic."
In summation, the thrust of this argument is as follows. In
order to accommodate the on-site parking, loading dock and
maneuvering requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, setbacks
comparable to those presently in effect would be necessary on most
tracts of property. The alternative would be "congestion of the
public right-of-way" which the Ordinance seeks to avoid. Further,
this means that the only setback areas which can be readily reduced
are those which cannot be used for parking or
Page 7 of 7
maneuvering, namely those adjacent to residentially zoned tracts.
So finally, the question returned to once again is this, " Would
15 feet side and rear Business Industrial setbacks provide an
adequate buffer between areas of industrial and residential
development?" The answer to this question should determine the
decision regarding this issue.
647 Shoreacres Blvd.
.
La Porte, Texas 77571
.
(713) 471.4580
DECKER McKIM, INC., REAL TORSID
January 30, 1991
RECEIVED
~-1-q/ "1l-/}.-
COMM. DEV.
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of La Porte
604 West Fairmont Parkway
La Porte, Texas 775,1
RE: Annual Zoning Ordinance Review
Dear Chairman:
As an active participant in the ongoing development ot
La Porte, our firm would like to respectfully submit for your
commission's review several guidelines within the present
zoning ordirance that warrant reconsideration.
We at Decker HcKim, Inc., Realtors are continually
contacted by both companies making initial inquiries about
La Porte and companies already committed to relocating within
La Porte if the -right land or space is available. The
majority of these companies would be classified within the
industrial parameters of our present zoning ordinance.
This activity has allowed us to become very familiar
with the quidelines of the three industrial zones. We
believe that while the Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial
guidelines are practical and serve the city and new
businesses well, the Business Industrial ("B-1") guidelines
as they pertain to setback parameters demand your
commission's attention and reconsideration.
Specifically, ile recommend that the B-1 setbacks
be reestablished as follows:
Setbacks
Front - 30ft
Rear - 15ft
Side - 15ft
The present B-1 guidelines, in their practical effect,
severely restrict development in B-1 zones to only large
tracts of land. As a result, smaller companies seeking to
locate to property that happens to lie within B-1 zoning are
faced with the unfortunate choice of either moving to a
less restrictive zoned property, which typically requires a
large~ capital expenditure, or ~ot locating in La Porte.
F~r example, conside~ the typical 100,000 square foot
[H
EXHIBIT A
REALTOR-
Serving the Real Estate Industry for a Quarter of a Century
platted block and a COmp&ry needi~~ Il\~ tho0~and ~~Jare
f Co Co t (5, 00 (1 sq. t t.) bUll d l n g. 1ft he b 1 ':1':: k is = 0 n e d ., ~ 1 ;, h t
I~dustrial" the ccmFany would requIre a 75 foot wide by 125
f C1 ::; t d e ~ p t r act G f 2. a rl d t 9 , 2. -: ~- ~:-~j. t t. .
I naB - I = en E r in ace c r d a n ~ E \? i t L ~~- h €; r r (:- ~~. (:. r: ~
-;f 1..1 i :! e 1 in e SIt h -= C' 8 IT ~::3. n ~r ~ >~ C' :_~ ~.-j ..- ,? ~j t: i ~ -= =! 1: r.3. c t \.T i t h :::2 5 f E: e t
'~f frcntcl.ge by 12:'. feet dee~. (:::2" 12': ~':l. 1:1:. ). Under this
s2~nario, th~ B-1 ~~o~ert~: ~~5: t:~ thr~~ times 35 la=?e 2nd,
Dec~"-J~-~ (if th~: ~:~-~tb~_C~f - I' ,~, ~"'\'" -: =;.~-;~/ ~,,1(=ul':~ h2."'~~ "": .:. I'.~ .:.:'
feet from fro11t to rear ~ = l~_ :~~~. rr~~ ~nd !S ~~d, \~ith
('I11v a 17~ lot COVe~2?~.
j!)~S not m3ke S~!15E.
?c'~ pr&c!ical ~JprljcetiGns, thlS
The situation im~r0~:F5 sligh~l~. if ~h~ alle~~ can tIe
=- ~,-=: ;:" 1:,> -j, i n c ~-~ '-:~ c~_ ~ i ~~ 9 t h ~ t ~: -~, c: t~ f::~ -=1-:~ }: t.'--j :_ ;~, :' t. f f e '? t. H c. ~,~ e .,~ ~ r
beC3~se of S~~b3Cks, 2 minimum of 100 feet of frc~tage is
required, and the total trac~ still must be 26,600 square
feet, allowing only a 18% lot coverage.
Using our proposed guidelines, the above described
scenarios are greatly improved. The company buying within
a revised B-1 zone, liithout the alley closed, vlould only
require a tract 100 feet wide by 125 feet deep, totalli~g
12,500 sq.ft. (a~ opposed to 28,125 sq. ft. ! and allowing a
40% lot coveraqe (~S opposed to 17%). Under the scenario
closing the alley, the tract 'do1..'ld be reduced to 75 feet ,;ide
by 266 feet deep, totalling 19,950 sq. ft. ~25 opposed to
26,600 sq. ft. ~1 \]ith lot cQvera'?E- i!"lcrea.5e~ to 25% (as
oP!?osed to 18~~).
We feel very strongly that these proposed guideline
~ha~ge~ ,;ill greatly assist in furth~r pr0mcti~g th~ smart,
healthy Ec~nc~tc gr8~th of 0~r ~:rm~nity.
T ~-; ci:-'l}: Y C :J
+' .~ ~
,<-"..,"~
, ._'....~.-
tirLE ~;.r~':~. ~~C~~:!:" Dc~,jti\.e
-~~r-'l~eo
- - - L.~ ...--
+~
.... '-
this TP3t,ter.
Sincer~l~,~,
, ;J (Jjl~A t({0
I
11 ? r~; !! (1 i m
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF LA PORTE
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
FEBRURARY 27, 1991
TO:
Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Joel H. Albrecht, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT:
Zoning Ordinance Annual Review
Research of the following review items has not been completed and
will be discussed in subsequent workshop sessions:
1) Definition Section 3-100
2)
Section 6-200 and Section 6-400:
definition and uses
Neighborhood Commercial
3) Review of Section 10-1000: Sign regulations
4) section 11-300: Zoning Permits
5) Ordinance requirements, pertaining to car ports and front yard
fences
6) Screening requirements
7) Main Street zoning regulations
JHA/cs