HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-05-1991 Regular Meeting of La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 5, 1991
Members Present:
Chairman lnge Browder, Commissioners Wayne Anderson,
Eugene Edmonds, Lola Phillips, Doug Martin, Paul Schaider
Members Absent:
Commissioner Betty Waters
City Staff Present:
Community Development Director Joel Albrecht, City Inspector
Mark Lewis, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong,Community
Development Secretary Peggy Lee
Others Present:
Dennis Dunham, Joe Smith and E.A Olson
1) CALL TO ORDER
Meeting was called to order by Chairman lnge Browder at 6:05 PM.
2) APPROVE MINUTES OF AUGUST 1, 1991 REGULAR MEETING
A motion was made by Doug Martin and seconded by Wayne Anderson 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
1501
The Commission discussed the three (3) remammg items designated for
consideration in the 1991 Zoning Ordinance review. These were:
Complete Main Street discussions
Hear comments on sign regulations
Comprehensive Plan Updates
Main Street
Joel Albrecht, speaking for staff, reiterated the Main Street goals previously
established by the Commission.
Make Main Street attractive to pedestrians
Promote a mix of retail uses, offices and restaurants.
Page 2
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes of September 5, 1991
Eliminate uses that utilize outdoor storage and outdoor servIce
activities.
Preserve and enhance the character of La Porte's Downtown District
with an emphasis on promoting an "old town" feeling.
Mr. Albrecht recapped the August 8 walking tour of the Main Street area during
which the Commission viewed and discussed the primary areas targeted for
consideration. Staff discussed the several options for new Main Street zoning lines
which had been discussed during the "tour".
The option chosen by the Commission (identified as Exhibit D in the agenda packet)
involves rezoning Blocks 37; 38; 39; 58; 59; 60; 181; 198 & 199 from "GC" to "NC".
A portion of blocks 40; 41; 42; 43; 44; 53; 54; 55; 56; & 57 would be rezoned from
"GC" to "R-l".
Other Main Street items discussed were the density-intensity, and setback issues.
After discussing these issues, the Commission decided that rather than amend the
Zoning Ordinance, to leave it as is and to let setback issues be dealt with by the
Board of Adjustment.
Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong stated that part of the plan is to include a
revision to the road map document which is the Comprehensive Plan and to insert
language that would direct the Board of Adjustment to take into account the zero
setback in the Main Street area only. This can be done within the Comprehensive
Plan without changing the Ordinance.
Presently the Zoning Ordinance's uses within the zoning classifications excludes
antique shops. Verbiage should be inserted into the Ordinance adding antique shops
and related uses.
Commissioner Edmonds stated that he felt the purpose of the Main Street review
was for the Planning & Zoning Commission to change the Ordinance in an effort
to meet the needs of the Main Street Association. Mr. Albrecht noted that during
review, it was found there already was a tool available to meet the Association's
needs.
A straw vote was taken. Doug Martin moved to accept staffs recommendation of
rezoning Blocks 37; 38; 39; 58; 59; 60; 181; 198; & 199 from "GC" to "NC". A
portion of Blocks 40; 41; 42; 43; 44; 53; 54; 55; 56; & 57 would be rezoned from
"GC" to "R-l". All members present voted to accept the motion.
Page 3
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes of September 5, 1991
Sign Regulations
Mr. Dunham addressed the Commission requesting that the issue of off-premise signs
be placed on the agenda for public hearing. Mr. Dunham feels that anyone wishing
to advertise off-premise with a portable sign or a free standing permanent sign
regardless of the zoning of the property on which the sign is to be located, should
be allowed to do so. Joe Smith of La Porte Feed agreed with Mr. Dunham's
request. Mr. Smith's business which is located off Spencer Highway is barely visible
from the highway. He feels he needs to be able to advertise his business off-premise.
A straw vote was taken to determine whether or not to place the sign issue on the
agenda for public hearing. After additional discussion, Doug Martin made a motion
requesting the sign issue be placed on the agenda for public hearing. The motion
was denied with three (3) votes in favor and two (2) opposed (four (4) affirmative
votes are necessary to pass a motion).
4) REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATES
Comprehensive Plan
A straw vote was taken to present the Comprehensive maps at the public hearing.
All were in favor.
Staff recommended that the Planning & Zoning Commission hold the public hearing
Thursday, October 17, 1991 at 7:00 PM.
The Commission approved the recommendation.
5) ADJOURN
A motion to adjourn was made by Lola Phillips and was seconded
by Eugene Edmonds. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 PM.
The next meeting/public hearing will be October 17, 1991.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Lee, Community Development Secretary
Approved this the 17th day of October, 1991
Inge Browder, Planning & Zoning Commission Chairman
z
ONING
OUT
REV
L I N E
I E
w
1991 ANNUAL ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW
r.
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.
5.
6.
1991 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW
OUTLINE
TOPIC
DATE DISCUSSED
1.
Section 5-700;
Table B, Residential
Setbacks Adjacent to
Utility Easement
03/21/91
2. Section 6-400;
Table B, Commercial
A. Dog Grooming
03/21/91
B. SIC 473:
Arrangement for
freight transport
03/21/91
3 .
Section 10-200.5;
(Accessory Buildings)
Accessory buildings on
large lot
Residential Tracts
03/21/91
4.
Section 10-204.2;
(Swimming pools, spas
and hot tubs)
Update code references
03/21/91
Section 10.500;
(Fencing and Landscaping)
Clarify intent of fencing
restrictions
03/21/91
Section 7-600;
Industrial Table B
Request to reduce BI
setbacks
03/21/91
7. Section 6-400;
Table A Commercial
A. Dog Grooming
04/18/91
B. SIC 473;
Arrangements for
shipping and
transport
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
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
06-27-91
Consider 26th st.
area for rezone
to G. C.
06-27-91
Prepare Ordinance
language to permit
front yard carports
07-18-91
Agreed to suggested
change
Page 3
TOPIC
DATE DISCUSSED
19. Front Yard Carports
20. Main Street Zoning
Regulations
21. Front Yard Carports
22. Sign Regulation
23. Main Street Zoning
Regulations
24. Comprehensive Plan Updates
A. "Thoroughfare Plan
B. Open Space and
Pedestrian System Plan
C. Community Facilities Plan
D. Beautification and
Conservation Plan
COMMISSION DIRECTION
07-18-91
Table further
discussion until
full Commission
is present.
07-18-91
Continue dis-
cussion at next
meeting. Focus
on goals and
allowable uses.
08-01-91
Consider in
Public Hearing
08-01-91
Took public input.
No Commission
action or
directives.
08-01-91
Set special
meeting date
(8-8-91) for
purpose of taking
walking tour of
Main Street.
Continue and
attempt to con-
clude discussion
at next P & Z
meeting.
~99~ ANNUAL REVIEW OF
ZONING ORDINANCE ~50~
CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
- -'
1991 ANNUAL REVIEW OF
ZONING ORDINANCE 1501
CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS FOR
AUGUST 15, 1991 MEETING
INTRODUCTION
There will be three
considered by the Commission
meeting. These are:
main topics
during the
of discussion
September 5,
to be
1991
1) Main street
2) Sign Regulation
3) Comprehensive Plan Updates
Regarding Main Street, the Planning and Zoning Commission,
at its August 1, 1991 meeting, discussed goals and possible
boundaries for a "Downtown Commercial District." Please bring to
this meeting the "Main street Report" and exhibits from the July
18, 1991 agenda packet.
Following Main Street, the next topic to be discussed will
be the City's sign regulations. These regulations are located in
Section 10-1000 (pages 90-92c) of the Zoning Ordinance. No
additional back up material regarding signs is included in this
report.
Updates to the Comprehensive Plan will be also discussed at
this meeting. Staff will provide an overview of the component
parts of the Comprehensive Plan. No additional backup is
included in this report.
A final item to be discussed at this meeting 'will be
establishing a date for a public hearing regarding the 1991
Annual Zoning Ordinance Review.
Page 2 of 6
DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT: The Planning and Zoning
Commission during the August 1, 1991 meeting, in conjunction with
members of the Main Street Association, established a set of
goals for the Main Street area. These goals, as staff
understands them, are as follows:
1) Make Main Street attractive to pedestrians.
2) Promote a mix of retail uses, offices and restaurants.
3) Elimination of uses that utilize outdoor storage and
outdoor service activities.
4) Preserve and enhance the character of La Porte's
Downtown District with an emphasis on promoting an "old
town" feel.
The Commission next discussed possible boundaries for a
Downtown District. After considerable discussion, the Commission
decided to take an August 8 "walking tour" of the Main Street
area. Several possible boundaries for the Downtown District were
discussed at the August 8 meeting. Staff has prepared maps
illustrating the various boundary scenarios. These maps are
attached as exhibits.
With goals and boundaries established, the next issue to be
addressed is what types of zoning regulations are necessary for
furthering the stated goals. The best point from which to begin
this discussion is probably a discussion of "obstacles" which the
Zoning Ordinance currently poses to restoration and development
within the district. These obstacles appear to fall into three
basic categories. These are as follows:
1) General Commercial Uses: The range of uses allowable
in G. C. Zones is too broadly based in that they allow
a number of permitted G. C. uses and activities that
are not conducive to the goals for the District.
2) Density Intensity Issues: Current lot coverage and
setback limits prevent construction of new buildings
that are in keeping with "typical" Main Street
structures. They could prevent reconstruction of a
destroyed building or even prevent a renovation whose
cost exceeded 50% of the building market value.
Page 3 of 6
3) Parkinq: The Zoning Ordinance currently requires even
existing buildings to meet off-street parking
requirements anytime there is "any change of use of
occupancy." The Ordinance precludes the reconstruction
of a non-conforming structure unless there are "off-
street parking or loading spaces meeting the
requirements of this Ordinance. (Section 10-604.3)."
There are a number of options available for addressing the
concerns raised by the Ordinance. These include:
1 )
Creation of a
detailed in
packet) .
new zoning district. This is the option
the Main Street Report (7/18/91 agenda
2) Creation of G. C. performance standards that would be
applicable to a Downtown District designated on the
Land Use component of the Comprehensive Plan.
3) Working within the existing ordinance structure, making
use of various exceptions and Board of Adjustment
options.
The first of these options was presented in some detail in
the Main Street Report will not be further discussed in this
report. The third option, or actually a combination of the
second and third options can be viewed as a "minimalist" approach
which also warrants consideration.
One possible advantage to adopting this approach is that it
involves the least amount of "tinkering" with the present
structure of the Zoning Ordinance. It would address each of the
three primary obstacles in the following ways:
.PARKING: Section ll-605.2C of the Zoning Ordinance allows
the Zoning Board of Adjustment to grant a special exception which
will "waive or reduce off-street parking and loading requirements
when the Board finds them unnecessary for the proposed use of the
building.... "
Page 4 of 6
SETBACK: In addition to setbacks, the related density
intensity issues of lot coverage and landscaping are all issues
which may be addressed through the Board of Adjustment's special
exception process. The various types of special exception which
could be available include exceptions to both front and rear
setbacks as well as exceptions for buildings located on corner
lots (Section 11-605.2.b). Additionally, Section 4-201.3
empowers the Board of Adjustment to grant special exceptions to
allow substantial repair of structures that have deteriorated or
been damaged in excess of 50% of its fair market value.
All the Board of Adjustment options noted above are
currently available in the Zoning Ordinance and have been
utilized by Main Street property owners as well as people
throughout the City. The Zoning Ordinance charges the Board to
grant special exception relief only when it finds that such
special exception will not adversely affect the value and use of
adjacent or neighboring property or be contrary to the best
public interest (Section 11-605)."
The advantages offered by this approach include the
availability of this option without ordinance amendment as well
as increased oversight control of proposed projects. The
possible disadvantages include uncertainties regarding approval
(The Board approaches each case individually and does not
consider its previous decisions as precedents.) and the somewhat
cumbersome nature of the process.
An amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan identifying
and recognizing the special needs and goals of Main Street would
help deal with the uncertainty involved with Board of Adjustment
cases. Establishing goals and standards against which a-proposed
project can be evaluated, would give the Board clear guidelines
in making determinations.
There is currently a provision in the residential section of
the Zoning Ordinance which could be readily adapted to Commercial
applications. It deals with setback "averaging" and could help
reduce the need for Board of Adjustment hearings regarding Main
street construction projects. This provision, currently located
in Section 5-701 states:
Page 5 of 6
Where adjacent structures within the same
block have front yard setbacks different from
those required, the front yard minimum
setback shall be the average of the adjacent
structures. If there is only one (1)
adjacent structure, the front yard minimum
setback shall be the average of the required
setback and the setback of only one (1)
adjacent structure. In no case shall the
minimum front yard setback exceed thirty feet
( 30 ' ) .
This averaging can be done by staff and does not require a
hearing before the Board of Adjustment or any other City Board or
Commission. If adapted to Commercial application, the provision
would benefit Main street while having minimal impact on the
City's other Commercial areas.
USES: A review of the proposal submitted by the Main Street
Association (Exhibit B, Main Street Exhibits) indicates that the
majority of uses proposed for Main Street by and large, are
Permitted uses in La Porte's Neighborhood Commercial (N. C.)
Zones. An "up zoning" of all or part of Main Street could
provide for the retail/office/restaurant mix favored by the
Commission and Main Street Association while precluding most of
the G. C. uses which appear to be incompatible with the goals
being established for the district. If this option is chosen,
some careful broadening of Permitted N. C. uses may be in order.
Most notable is the need for inclusion of SIC 5932, the listing
which includes antique shops.
In summation, the Main Street approach described above, can
be viewed as a cautious approach that would give Main Street the
near term "use protection" it seeks while at the same time
avoiding major ordinance revisions. This approach would allow
continuation of the restoration work undertaken by the
Nieuwenhuis' and other Main Street property owners. It will as
well allow the street to continue to evolve as a specialty
shopping district. This appears to be an approach worthy of
serious consideration by the Commission.
Page 6 of 6
Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan includes several map
exhibits which have been adopted as component parts of the plan.
staff requests that the Commission bring Plan Volume I to the
August 15 meeting. Staff will present an overview and discussion
of needed plan updates.
.
...;
1/ /NY /'16
I C] I " I c:J ~@ i ~~~":im I
l c=JJ1 =.J ~ GJa.: 'j'! I'
F . ,..-- ......
I i 1\ ~f "
A/tJJ'(/I ~
ST.
~I
~.J
.1
....
.
I
LS'~
("'\=
.rr.
. t
:38BI ~ n. :.-1
=.J c=J ElJ c=r [~~
~c=J Jc=Jll~
\0...,.
:=J1 " I EJL.~ [ ~
~I ..~ 'c=J r ~~I
I c=J c=J L, I I ~ c I [ ~
~.C=J c=J," 'I, ~-I I ~ll If ~
3 ~. :::
:=Jc=J c=JL,~ L~~ _ ~nDJ L I.' ~ !I ~
=:J c=::=r c=J1-'" 1-[' "" Pl ~-~ "LJD I~-I f'< ~ r- - -
=:J L:~, .1 c=J ~ c==J I ~ 10 ; iL:1 c=J e-: I'j ..
-.J I " I c=J c=J c=J . ~ lJcJ c=Jj - I, ...
..' .I:1= ...-
c::;;=J _~L~! L. ~ I 'M~,'0~1'" ;,
-- C~ . (\' ,.,. . . r:=:J. "'---.J.,
-:J f- . .,~. . ~
/~~.:- ", '",
-=," .'-,~ '_ ~ ,~._, " .' , L3;c=J:' " '
~..r~'~~J_ .5 _~-,~-'ll~,'~? " -~ ~~O'c=J,J ~ I
~\03" 'w~ --(~- : . '~~'~~\#\~"":8 ." - :6
~ _-=,..u- ~~ If ~\:,.'\~' ~~-;J~' . ,
. '~........ &;~ ~ \, . la.
. ,. \ ....]11 '\~ /.,. ~~~ ~~. ..... ':.~-,' V,\;,' -', .
-'" },~.. . ~.' ~~:,\\\~1: ~~~~~ 88
~ .,~\\ ~ -=.:. " - ~
OPTION I )~~~ -, ~";. - _;;.'i,'. ,- ,
rHIS OPTION INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF R-l j~' . '\-J~~tt:::;::]
'ROPERTY SURROUNDING MAIN STREET. ALL OTHER ~~\). ~. ..-:::.ES:J
3CENARIOS INCORPORATE THIS OPTION: ~ ~ ~\, ~~...;~~ ~,;. ,..._
-
~,
...
'"'
1) ELIMINATES 26 NON CONFORMING USES
2) CREATES ~ NEW NONCONFORMING USES
3) MAINTAINS STATUS OF ~ EXISTING
NONCONFORMING USES
/
/
~
EXHIBlT 1\
38 BHI.. ~.'11
JI " I ElJc=Jl ~
JI .~ I jc=Jl~:=J
] I~_~ EJ L,,~ C ~~
] I ~~ . c=J r ~-I
l c==J c=J L~ I I~~
J.c=J c==JC_~ I ~-I
] I ~ c==J L,-1 Ll~! sJ
] I' r c=J' L~ ro. ~ "l .1 ---
lc:::tJl
l c=IJ I
~
~ I
/lwy /Lf6
I, II ~~ B,::'::,Fij'" !~~'::bL"':;11
--s--, I '-J';' IK.... ...~ ,.
---1 G;) ," ~~';-':. .~
. ..,.--- .-.... .
~ I
;J/tJIT)I ~
~ I '
J.I ~
1,1
sr.
....
.
I
LS'~ .
0=
) 15 EXISTING COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS
RENDERED NONCONFORMING
3 BUSINESSES AND 10 RESIDENCES MAINTAIN
STATUS AS NONCONFORMING USES
EXHIBIT B
JI
J.I
l.l
,
...:;
I/wy /'16
I EE I ~ I C\1 ~ t:' \11.1 ~~~';IH ~
~ . ..-_. ----
I ~Il ~ 0. I
;//1111 j! ~
1BBB81
JI , I ElJc=:Jl ~
JI .~ I jc=Jl~:=J
] I~_~ EJ L,,---1 [~~
] I -~ . c=J r ~-I
Jc=J c=JL ! I "~
J.e=] c=J C~ ,- ~-I
] I ~ c=J L,~ L l~_-.J _~
J I' r c=J' L~ roo' ~ ""l .f--
11 EXISTING COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS
RENDERED NONCONFORMING
1 BUSINESSES AND ~ RESIDENCES MAINTAIN
STATUS AS NONCONFORMING USES
EXHIBIT C
JI
J.I
l,j
I
LS\~ .
f'=
. I
.' I. . I
l [===:J -c::::LJ LJ . ~ j .rr. - II I
] c=J c=J C=--::J C~'-I ' ~
31 ~ IElE3l~::J ;. I ' B
]J I~~ EJ L .,--.J [~~ .. [ s: l ...
I ..~ . c=J r '~-I , " I.CJ [~-:
lJ c=J C:=J L~ J l~~ I ,. I ~ [~~
.C=J c=J C-.J I .. I " ~II ' ! r =.. I
] I I B 3 !::!. ..'7.'
] r-~r ' 'LL~~ [:- ~-~J l~ 11,_ i ,I .L !./ .. ! I "' i
L-. ~_ .. _, ._ r II ~-l~I'''-1
j~'l-'I BB B I . ~~D:!Rr-~.r: ('1 .~ I
~I;:J L.~! L ~~ :. :,n~:~c::J 10~r==
_. , ('\' ,~ J_ I . c=J..II\~ c=J
l I ~ /J"'~' j#: ~~-. ~. '8- :1 r
_ '- ---.-.! :.. _J '. . '. " - . ' . ""
~..r J2~~1 .~~~I!-.~-'ll ".':~ . .~-~ ~~ ' .; -. .1 ' I:
~\'g)' · \f-:;:"'~----: -\ ~ "'.. - ~ - - "') "'~-~~. w;~.,:: : '6
~ ~ -- Q:i: - ' " :"~~' \~ ~.' ~ .....
\ ,. - .... "",J' , . \ -to' - .' ' .
/~~~. -'0 ~\ -~\~\ ' ~.~~'- ~'\~~' a -It - ~ -If:
,~~ ~lG~ '':!::!:v;dA, ~ ~~X'-.~'.;~\~5!
us OPTION REZONES THE FOLLOWING BLOCKS TO ="\~O-(\~A\;. '.- .;-~~~
!!:IGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL: ALL OPTION II ~ ~ ~\, ~ ..A~."""~- ~.- -. - l
~OCKS PLUS, THE INDICATED PORTIONS OF BLOCKS
o AND 57. WITH THIS OPTION:
,
..;;
}/ wy jtf6
I c:::JJ I I. I L~ tOg! ~DL"':~j I ~
I. ~ I :=J I C0 '--J CJ][].: fdL]]I' ~
~ . .....-. .....
I ~Il ~ 0~
A/tJl"fl/ ~
sr.
EXHIBIT D
l! EXISTING COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS
RENDERED NONCONFORMING
) ~ BUSINESSES AND ~ RESIDENCES MAINTAIN
STATUS AS NONCONFORMING USES