HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-27-1991 Workshop Session of La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 27, 1991
Members Present:
Chairman Inge Browder, Commissioners Betty Waters, Lola
Phillips, Wayne Anderson, Doug Martin
Members Absent:
Commissioners Eugene Edmonds, Paul Schaider
City Staff Present:
Community Development Director Joel Albrecht, City Inspector
Mark Lewis, Chief Building Official Ervin Griffith, Assistant City
Attorney John Armstrong, Community Development Secretary
Peggy Lee, City Secretary Cherie Black administered the Oath
of Office and left.
Others Present:
Dennis Dunham, Gary Groda, Joe Burkhart, William McCain, ".
Bel Alvarado, Ronnie Sims, Sandi Groda, Walter Groda,
Theresa Lorna, Ella Mae Thornton, R.W. Smith, Barbara
Holloway, J.H. Longnecker and other citizens.
1) CALL TO ORDER
Meeting was called to order by Inge Browder at 6:10 PM.
2) ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE TO RE-APPOINTED PLANNING & ZONING
COMMISSION MEMBERS
City Secretary Cherie Black administered the Oath of Office to Commissioner Wayne
Anderson.
3) APPROVE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 18, 1991, REGULAR MEETING
A motion was made by Betty Waters and seconded by Lola Phillips to approve the
minutes as submitted. All were in favor and the motion passed.
4) DISCUSS ITEMS RELATING TO THE 1991 REVIEW OF ZONING ORDINANCE
1501
During the April 18, 1991 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, the
commissioners directed staff to research and prepare information and options
regarding the following items:
*
Residential uses within Commercial Zones/Use Zone designations along the
west side of 26th Street (Sens Road).
*
Setback requirements regarding carports.
Discussion of each of these items follows.
Page 2
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes of June 27, 1991
Residential Uses Within Commercial Zones
Staff, as directed by the Planning & Zoning Commission, researched ordinance
regulations as they apply to single family homes located in commercial zones. As
currently worded, the Zoning Ordinance prohibits construction of new single family
homes within commercial zones as well as rendering non-conforming, all existing
single family homes currently located within these zones. Concern has been
expressed that this provision could prevent the reconstruction of a person's
homestead property should it be located within a commercial zone (especially along
the west side of 26th Street, where there exists a number of homes located on what
is now commercially zoned property). Staff sees three (3) options available as a
means of dealing with this type of situation.
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
''.
Currently available in the Zoning Ordinance, involves the Board
of Adjustment. Two (2) tracks can be pursued in these types
of situations. These are "Appeals" Section 11-604 and "Special
Exceptions", Section 11-605 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Maintaining the "status quo" in this area would, as intended by
the Zoning Ordinance, preclude the development of new single
family homesites in commercial zones while still providing the
means to protect the rights of owners of existing homes.
Amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow single family homes
in Commercial Zones. If this option were chosen, setback and
lot coverage would still be regulated by Section 5-700,
Residential Table B. It should be clearly understood that a
single family residence located in a commercial zone would not
be entitled to the same protection as those located within
residential districts. Should the Commission wish to recommend
that single family residences be allowed in commercial zones,
it would be necessary to amend the present Table 6-400.
Rezoning commercially zoned property occupied by single family
homes. Staff has been requested to research the zoning
classifications of property located on the west side of 26th Street.
With the exception of Pecan Villa Mobile Home Park (zoned
MH) and an approximately 13.5 acre tract located north of "P"
Street (zoned BI), all the property located along the west side
of 26th Street is zoned for either Neighborhood of General
Commercial use. The present zoning designations in this area
somewhat resemble and can be seen as a continuation of those
which were in place under Zoning Ordinance 780.
Mr. Albrecht showed several slides on the overhead projector depicting the current
zoning status of the 26th Street area and discussed the three options.
Page 3
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes of June 27, 1991
Chairman lnge Browder asked if there were any questions from the Commission.
Betty Waters explained she was satisfied homeowners have avenues they may pursue.
Betty also recommended to the Commission the rezoning of the 26th Street area.
She felt that the Neighborhood classification in this area is inappropriate and
requests a change from Neighborhood Commercial to General Commercial. There
was discussion amongst Staff and Commission regarding zoning classification for the
area.
The floor was asked to speak at this time. Dennis Dunham addressed the Board and
expressed his concerns on the subject. He felt that this issue also affects other areas
of the City and feels that the Citizens of La Porte should have more say in how
they use their property.
Staff was instructed to prepare for a public hearing to consider the changing of the
Neighborhood Commercial zoned properties on 26th Street to General Commercial.
'.
Carports
The Commission had directed Staff to research possible options regarding placement
of carports into what are now designated as front yard setback areas. Mr. Albrecht
presented the staff report regarding this issue and showed slides on the overhead
projector of diagrams of various carport options.
Chairman Browder opened the floor for comments pertaining to the subject of
carports.
The following fourteen (14) citizens spoke in favor of carports:
Dennis Dunham, Gary Groda, Joe Burkhart, Faye Burkhart, William McClain,
Bel Alvarado, Ronnie Sims, Sandi Groda, Walter Groda, Theresa Lamar, Ella
Mae Thornton, R. W. Smith, Barbara Holloway and J.H. Longnecker.
No one spoke against carports.
Betty Waters made a motion to direct staff to redraft the section of the Ordinace
concerning carports, that would permit carports in areas that do not have deed
restrictions prohibiting them (following the guideline with a 5 foot setback for the
front and the sides). The motion was seconded by Doug Martin.
Lola Phillips addressed the issues of standards for carports. Mr. Albrecht stated that
the Building Code already specifies performance standards.
A vote was taken by the Commission. All were in favor, no one opposed. The
motion carried.
At 7:05 PM Chairman Browder thanked the Citizens for coming and then instructed
Commission and Staff to take a five minute break.
Page 4
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes of June 27, 1991
Discussion resumed at 7:10 PM concerning sidewalk and curb replacement and
wheelchair access ramps for Main Street. Mr. Albrecht stated that $40,000.00 had
been set aside for this project and fortunately there were funds left over enabling us
to be able to construct additional wheelchair ramps for 3rd Street and for additional
sidewalk and curb construction.
Chairman Browder asked the Board if they would consider putting the Sign
Ordinance back on the agenda for consideration. There have been requests by
property owners to be able to install signs on their property. Mr. Albrecht stated
that there was a citizen who was unable (due to an emergency) to make his
comments to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Therefore, the citizen has made
a request of Staff and Commission to have the opportunity to speak on the matter.
Everyone seemed to agree that the subject be returned to the agenda (at some point
in the near future, not necessarily the next meeting).
".
5) ADJOURN
A motion to adjourn was made by Betty Waters and was seconded by Wayne
Anderson.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Lee, Secretary
Community Development
Approved this the 18th day of July, 1991
Inge Browder, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Commission
7/15/91/pal
.
.
z
CJ N
I N
CJ U
G
T L
REV
I N E
I E
w
.
1991 ANNUAL ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW
1.
Regular Ordinance Review Items (as provided for by Ordinance
Section 11-504).
II. Main Street Review.
III. Comprehensive Plan Review.
IV. Planning and Zoning commission Public Hearing and Recommendation
to City Council.
V. City Council Workshop review of above listed items.
VI. City Council Public Hearing.
VII. Adoption of Ordinance amending Zoning Ordinance (and/or Zoning Map)
to reflect review items.
1.
1991 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW
OUTLINE
TOPIC
DATE DISCUSSED
section 5-700;
Table B, Residential
Setbacks Adjacent to
utility Easement
2. section 6-400;
Table B, Commercial
3.
4.
A. Dog Grooming
B. SIC 473:
Arrangement for
freight transport
section 10-200.5;
(Accessory Buildings)
Accessory buildings on
large lot
Residential Tracts
section 10-204.2;
(Swimming pools, spas
and hot tubs)
Update code references
5.
section 10.500;
(Fencing and Landscaping)
clarify intent of fencing
restrictions
6.
section 7-600;
Industrial Table B
Request to reduce BI
setbacks
7. Section 6-400;
Table A Commercial
A. Dog Grooming
B. SIC 473;
Arrangements for
shipping and
transport
03/21/91
03/21/91
03/21/91
03/21/91
03/21/91
03/21/91
03/21/91
04/18/91
04/18/91
COMMISSION DIRECTION
Agreed to suggested
change
Research further
Research further
Agreed to suggested
change
Agreed to suggested
change
Agreed to suggested
change
Research further
Agreed to suggested
change
Agreed to suggested
change
Page 2
TOPIC
8. section 7-600;
Table B Industrial
Business Industrial
Setbacks
9. Section 6-200;
Neighborhood Commercial
10. Front Yard Carports
11. Front Yard Fences
12. Section 5-500;
Parking lot screening
13. section 10-1000;
Sign regulation
14. section 11-300;
Zoning Permits
A. Revocation
B. Additional
requirements
15. Residential Uses in
Commercial Zones/
on 26th Street
16. Front Yard Carports
17. Zoning Permit
Requirements
18. Section 4-400
Zoning of Annexed Property
DATE DISCUSSED
COMMISSION DIRECTION
04/18/91
Let current
regulations stand
04/18/91
Research
Residential Uses
in NC//GC
Research NC zoning
on 26th Street
04/18/91
04/18/91
Research further
Let current
regulations stand
04/18/91
Agreed to suggested
change
04/18/91
Agreed to suggested
change
04/18/91
Agreed to suggested
change
04/18/91
Research further
,
Page 3
TOPIC
DATE DISCUSSED
COMMISSION DIRECTION
19. Main Street Zoning
Regulations
20. Comprehensive Plan Updates
A. Thoroughfare Plan
B. Open Space and
Pedestrian System Plan
C. Community Facilities Plan
D. Beautification and
Conservation Plan
21. Update comprehensive
Plan in regard to
former Bay Mud area
(Annexed Ord. 1626)
,
STAFF
REPORT
~
1991 ANNUAL REVIEW OF
ZONING ORDINANCE #1501
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
The Planning and Zoning Commission, during the April 18,
1991, meeting, directed Staff to research and prepare information
and options regarding the following items:
Residential Uses
designations along
Road).
within Commercial Zones/Use Zone
the West side of 26th Street (Sens
Setback requirements regarding carports.
Discussion of each of these items follows.
I. Residential Uses In Commercial Zones: Staff, as
directed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, researched
ordinance regulations as they apply to single family homes
located in commercial zones. Section 6-400, Table A (pgs 37-40)
establishes the types of uses that are allowed in La Porte's
Commercial Zones. The listing on this Table which regulates
residential uses states: "All uses permitted or accessory in R-
3 Zones, except single family detached and special lot line"
homes are permitted uses in both Neighborhood and General
Commercial Zones. As currently worded, this provision prohibits
construction of new single family homes within commercial zones
as well as rendering non-conforming, all existing single family
homes curently located within these zones. Concern has been
expressed that this provision could prevent the reconstruction of
a person's homestead property should it be located within a
commercial zone. This appears to be a special concern along the
West side of 26th Street where there exist a number of homes
located on what is now commercially zoned property.
There appear to be three basic options available
of dealing with this type of situation. The first
which is currently available in the Zoning Ordinance,
the Board of Adjustment. There are two different
Adjustment tracks that can be pursued in these
situations. These are Appeals and Special Exception.
as a means
of these,
involves
Board of
types of
,
Page 2 of 7
Section 11-604 of the Zoning
the Board of Adjustment may be
or...affected by any decision
Essentially, appeals can function
Ordinance states: "Appeals to
taken by any person aggrieved
of the enforcement officer."
in the following way.
1. A property owner (or his contractor) applies for a
building permit to either reconstruct an existing home
or build a new home within a commercial zone.
2. Under the terms of the current Zoning Ordinance, this
permit would be denied.
3. The owner then appeals this denial to the Board of
Adjustment. Appeals are decided on a case by case
basis, based on the merits of the appeal and guidelines
in the Zoning Ordinance.
It should be noted that the Zoning Ordinance sets very
stringent guidelines and standards for granting appeals. The
burden of proving that ordinance criteria have been satisfied is
placed on the applicant.
Regarding Special Exceptions, Section 11-605 empowers the
Board to consider and grant special exceptions for the
reconstruction of a building "occupied by a non-conforming use on
the lot or tract occupied by such building." The Board of
Adjustment considers Special Exceptions on an individual case by
case basis and makes determinations based on ordinance guidelines
and the merits of each case. An exception cannot be granted for
development of a new single family home to be located on
undevelooed commercial property. The Special Exception process
does however provide a means for permitting the reconstruction or
even complete replacement of an existing non-conforming
structure. This process probably provides the best avenue for
dealing with the concerns raised regarding homeowners on 26th
Street.
The Board of Adjustment options discussed above are
available in the current ordinance. Maintaining the "status quo"
in this area would, as intended by the Zoning Ordinance, preclude
the development of new single family homesites in commercial
zones while still providing the means to protect the rights of
owners of existing homes.
t
Page 3 of 7
Amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow single family homes
in Commercial Zones is a second option for dealing with this
concern. Should this option be chosen, setback and lot coverage
would still be regulated by Section 5-700, Residential Table B
(pgs 329-31). All other normal single family residential
requirements would still be applicable. It should however, be
clearly understood that a single family residence located in a
Commercial Zone would not be entitled to the same protections as
those located within residential districts. What this means
specifically is that a commercial establishment located next door
to a home would not be required to provide additional setbacks,
or landscaping buffers, nor would it be subject to any of the
other requirements which must be met by businesses locating
adjacent to Residential Zones.
Should the Commission wish to recommend that single family
residences be allowed in Commercial Zones, it would be necessary
to amend the present Table 6-400 listing as follows:
NC
GC
All uses permitted or accessory
in R-3 Zones
P
P
The third option available, is rezoning commercially zoned
property occupied by single family homes. A request for rezoning
can be initiated by either individual property owners (for their
own properties only) or by the Planning and Zoning Commission (on
an area-wide basis). Staff has been requested to research the
zoning classifications of property located on the West side of
26th Street. With the exception of Pecan Villa Mobile Home Park
(Zoned MH) and an approximately 13.5 acre tract located North of
"P" Street (Zoned BI), all the property located along the West
side of 26th Street is zoned for either Neighborhood or General
Commercial use (see Exhibit A). The present zoning designations
in this area somewhat resemble and can be seen as a continuation
of those which were in place under Zoning Ordinance 780 (See
Exhibit B).
.
Page 4 of 7
The Land Use component of the Comprehensive Plan (Volume I,
Exhibit 2) when initially presented to the City proposed a mix of
various density residential uses for the 26th street area. This
Land Use Plan was the model on which the earliest draft of the
City's current Zoning Map was based. The process of developing
and adopting the Zoning Map included the following steps:
Neighborhood meetings were held in various locations
around the City. The purpose of these meetings which
were jointly chaired by Planning and Zoning and City
Council was to gather citizen input and opinion.
City staff and officials corresponded and met with
individual property owners, realtors and developers.
Planning and Zoning held several discussion and review
meetings on map issues leading up to a formal public
hearing at which the map was "recommended" to City
Council for consideration.
City Council also held several workshop meetings to
discuss and take comments on map issues prior to
holding a formal public hearing to approve the map.
During the course of these discussions, meetings and
hearings, the Zoning Map, largely based on public input and
planning concerns, evolved into its present configuration. The
City has retained records of the Zoning Map development process.
Copies of these records which include meeting minutes,
correspondence and draft maps, will be available in the Council
Chambers during the May 16, 1991, Committion meeting.
As previously noted, the present zoning designations on the
West side of 26th Street somewhat resemble those in place under
Ordinance 780. There are however two important differences
between 780 and the present designations.
Under Ordinance 780, single
allowable in Commercial Zones.
they are not.
family
Under
dwellings were
Ordinance 1501
Under Ordinance 780, there were no functional
differences between various types of Commercial Zoning
designations. Under Ordinance 1501, there are definite
differences between Neighborhood and General Commercial
Zones.
.
Page 5 of 7
As indicated on Exhibit A, there are two Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) Zones located on 26th street. Both of these N.C.
Zones are bordered by General Commercial (G.C.) Zones. As has
been pointed out by the Commission, the close proximity of G. C.
Zoning greatly reduces the attractiveness for development of the
N. C. Zones.
Neighborhood Commercial Zones are designed to "provide
services and goods only for the surrounding neighborhoods and are
not intended to draw customers from the entire community (Section
6-201)." The zones are intended to be small in size, located in
close proximity to residential developments and situated so that
they are not in direct competition with areas of General
Commercial development.
In the case of 26th Street, the N. C. Zones, although
located near a large residential area, does not otherwise fit the
N. C. "model." The zones when combined, comprise by far, the
largest area of N. C. Zoning in the City. It is in a sense,
competing for development with the adjacent less restrictive
General Commercial Zones.
Should the Commission wish to consider amending zoning lines
in the 26th area, the process would be handled the same as any
other rezoning. Once an area is designated and a new
classification proposed, a public hearing can be scheduled.
Public notices will be sent to all owners of property located
within the area as well as owners of property located within 200
feet of the properties being considered.
II. Carports: The Commission directed Staff to research
possible options regarding placement of carports into what are
now designated as front yard setback areas. There are several
factors to be considered in regard to this matter.
\
Page 6 of 7
While there are many existing front yard carports scattered
throughout the older sections of the City, encroachments into the
(residential) 25 foot front setback area have been prohibited for
several years. The current front setback requirements of
Ordinance 1501 reflect those of Zoning Ordinance 780 (originally
adopted in 1968). Many existing front yard carports were either
constructed prior to 1968 or in some cases prior to an area's
annexation. These carports as legally established non-conforming
uses can continue to be maintained indefinitely. Additionally,
following Hurricane Alicia in 1983, Council authorized the
reconstruction of non-conforming uses destroyed by the storm.
Many "old" carports therefore have a fairly new appearance.
There are as well, carports that have been constructed without
permits. A typical carport can easily be constructed in one to
two days. Finally, it should be noted that requests for front
yard carport permits have been frequently requested over the last
several years.
The remaining discussion regarding this topic will deal with
possible advantages and disadvantages of permitting front yard
carports and specific standards that might be applied if front
yard carports are determined to be appropriate. Regarding the
first issue, possible benefits of front yard carports include:
Provide protected parking for vehicles. Many older
homes have either single car garages or no garages and
no room for construction of a future garage. Also, the
garages of many homes have been converted to living
space.
Possible problems associated with front yard carports
can include:
Visual clutter that detracts from "street-scape".
Impossible to establish quality standards (other than
Building Code structural standards).
Deed restrictions and platted setback lines would
prohibit in certain neighborhoods. This could create a
type of double standard within residential zones.
.
Page 7 of 7
Regarding specific setback and location requirements that
might be applied to carports, rather than engage in lengthy
discussion, a series of exhibits have been attached to this
report. These exhibits deal with various carport options (See
Exhibits C & D).
Staff has at this time, not prepared any proposed ordinance
language to accommodate carport requirements. We are rather,
waiting for direction from the Commission before proceeding.
-p"Sf"r<L't
81
GC
. .
,
2
~
& BI
LI
ORDINANCE 1501
EXHIBIT A
, e
~l \I c}' (~I
. i ~
l .;:;.r'IL~/ I ~
. l\ l\ ,/,"
l f-- I;;
_._-. - >> -J;I1
-::~~- - ~~~
, '~""" "" . . ::::::...".~ ..:,' II e I!"... "
1 ~ou'" !'at,I,t / ~~ "-
, "... oo,AY': ~ ""-'
'," ,:;'" ~:-
'~,!)2 903 904 gO& 906 \~~~" ,in /' r~
,/ II ... ~
',\
,,0 ,,'\ ", It rttl cP,'
\ \1. E, \ 0'-.
\ \"~ 1 It
\ \'" .." ''! I
\~ ~. u
919 920 921 "-\:\1
p.:\
\ \\\
"1,
I~\
\ J;, ~
\: '.
I%,,\ ...
~~y
", #
""-,
#
,
#
,
.~...,
#
-.... #
---.:. ~
---!...!IIIr .
--.;;..! ~
.
.:;; -
:-ii-"'" 225
&ti~. = ~ ,;
~ ._' .,1.
'::..? I 34 \ r I';'
~?'-'~~--'- ~ - -
" ID &;": Ii \;
~ ...r::;:;- :,' \
IT _~. II
M.'fl,~VT Il~~- ~4o\\
~{...." .. ... ' \
31C ~ ",,{ ~21\
-~ .. \ \ \
\ol\~ ..
'"l:
rt" ,''t',i 1 ~
3\1 ~. ;,'9 ~ZO 90\
b.
...
r;&-
.....
"~
'..
... ..'
-~
~
\ ~' ,'" " \ 9\4 ,9!> 9\2 9\\
)5 304:_ 3._ l . C \i loo.. \}. __,I
. ..,....".. ~\"' \
...." ......_. or.
t96 291 III t,l1(GRb\! ~\915lf ~ 911 9\.
\SUeo,. ~". ,t 0' \~
,,, ,.,' " \, \ "b '
,.. " \' ,.,-,""" ~\, ' '
-r: -r.rI'..tW~' ~, ,.
\ ..\)-'. ,}
276 '1.11 ~ 7"~'-.. !~. ~'lB;! ,'. ;", ~ ,
\ _..:. "." ~ ~ ".,1"
I' ';!. ~,'
Z65 \ 264 \ '~6' <L1't,~, ~ ;~
- ~~ ~.." ~;~.
~,= ~'f~~' '~~.
\\. . . ~ . '~:J;
, \' - ", -:"" ~r ;,
245\ \ 244 \ 2-d: !-:'..... ~4.~ ~. ..,
;-.-, \~ :;.
I "..,. i L .:;' .,.'. \.. .fl
". ,>T ,,~ '~t,{'..~J'; L
I tfJ,,'.., "r"
\j
\\
,\
I'
ll,
-~-
----- \\
" e"
\\
':' c'. .: _d~ ~~e .f:~~ $';
r,. !Jr. ..::..... : .;+:-f7- .,.
L ," : ~ - \
'= ~ ,...'.. ,0 OJ' ,,;\\.,~\ I
,-V ."....l Ddl::::J
~~',@ 1~~]..~388\ OD
r ~,I.c. - "".: -.: ~ \38\ C9J
y~, ..\" II,:" ~ 8B\C-o
\..) ~ ~:. ':. ';:0 Ae6~ ~. -'
~,~\~\E, H\~M
,L,
~..,,,. ~~1; .- 't."~'~' --:
''';'''.' f' .."~:::;;'(.: ':::....... . :.;.~,- .
.:r..I;.! .c." '
, ..: .' ..... '. .-' . ~ ~ -~ "
- ,,' . \ ':\ \ .-
~I
.",..~t
:-.: ,
~'
~\\~\.
.\
\
: --
<
-~ 1/
~/!
~\g~~?-:-:
l.f>~'
t:~
T"
~"'~ ~
f'EACl'\ ,\' 0'
sO\l'f~ .~',
. ' ' .....\ ~ "', \
\
" .'
"
sEE " ..--.~ ~
" 19
ORO II
780-r II
I'
, \ "
,.' o\'rc~
\
.
IS
~' ~"
\, .'
11
10
. - ."
--"" ..
"
-, \ ~ ..) <.
,~1. <.0 ~~.;i'. ,~
~ ,1\;;' rt ~1
~ ;.".;,.~. \li-:
1 \
l:)
J:
....,.'
, ;;,\
..~1.
~.
ii:-;'~
.,.....
...'
.l~~...
------\
.= '. ~. ~.~
\C.i\ .\ ~ \\
~~.~ \2.
..
;.fo:'...'I.
\~'"
?-;,:.....
!Iltt.,~'
~~.:,~
'\i."; .-
-:, ,~~~; - '\ n,'f\ 1-
"f" . . .' "D'~ "
~ , - " \ \ \
\\ \\.
l-:
- -
~..---.-
(\ \ \
~r"'..
\\~"
\. \ 1
~ . ; \
\~ \ \
" - \
- ~- \
.1"
\I'
SEE OR.Dl'lO.780-~
\I
\'
LE.GENO
~u:3
RE5iDE.NTIAL .,;. J
RE 5/0ENTIAL ";2
DISTRICT 'c"
APARrM~NT ~ COMMEI(-
ClAI.. ~ UGUi INDUSTRIAL
IF SP€CIAL PE.I?t-1J1
Gl?lIJJfEO
LA ;'.::;</.[' c/~r' t--1X1r.5
~ '.
.~.
~--;
~~',~' -
~t~ ~'
'~~t ..
,,> ~~
...<;, . t;
''j: ..1".
,.
\
l:\ \
CO~MF.J<CI~L
INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICT . .
CfAL W /.; e
PERMI f LIe;
rll1A /
\( "'E _":'IJ
ORDIN1\NCE 780
f/\
~\-\\att' B
.
STREET
EDGE OF ROAD
- ~~ - -
-~--
\
I
. . \
00' I
: 00 0 0..0 \
I
\
~I-~I ,
'5'
~r
o;f
. 6,0 0 0
rlr! - .'. ,
. \r' .
~;' 00 0 00' 0 O. o. I~ ~,. 0
'. . I .' - I .
~F", ~~ "'-'.
~l 00 'I~ .0.
ij
:;J
L..
ZS:L3'Yg. u~
t \
.J
\
I
. 0 \ 0.000
I .
. .
I
I
I
I
j
\
I
1
50'
\
\
\
~~~;,faeY
\ \ [%j ~ AREA COVERED BY CARPOI
I~
\ 0 I EXHfBlT C
l
I
\
.
STREET
EDGE OF ROAD
;2..5'
t
if'
ij
:::>
I
, \
~r'
;I
J '.
" . 6,"
. A;/" , "
\l .' if '.. , . .~".
~II~ .
-I. .' . I ~ '.:
~~~ " =+=-I~...
I I~ - .
'il . "I~ -.,
~. . -.') .'
g5:LJ#g. va:.
t \
. . I
- "
..' " '. l
-. - .
.-." ~.-:."
. '.. '.. . \
. -
-.,'-:' ',. : '. ..
," ., . .,"-.
'.. - .' -;-
... ..-
I
I
, ,I
1
I
'. I..
. .
I
I
\
\
I
1
: I
I
I
50'
-I
I .
\
= AREA COVERED BY CARPOF
EXHIBIT D