Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-15-1996 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of the La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission• • • • Minutes • MINUTES • PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING • FEBRUARY 15, 1996 Members Present: Chairman Betty Waters, Commission Members Chuck Engelken, Eugene Edmonds, Margaret Anderson, Howard Ebow, Melton Wolters Members Absent: Dottie Kaminski City Staff Present: Assistant City Manager John Jcerns, Director of Planning Guy Rankin, Building Official Mark Lewis, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee, Assistant: City Attorney John Armstrong I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order by Chairman Waters at 6:05 PM. II. APPROVE NIINUTES OF THE JANUARY 18, 1996, REGULAR MEETING. A motion was made by Howard Ebow to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Eugene Edmonds. All were in favor and the motion passed. • Chairman Waters suspended the agenda to allow the Assistant City Manager, John Jcerns, an opportunity to update the Commission with regards to Southern Pacific and F-101 Watershed Improvements. Mr. Jcerns reported that resolution may come soon regarding negotiations between Southern Pacific Railway, Harris County Flood Control District, and the City of La Porte that would allow for stormwater improvements through the railroad tracks at Strang Yard. These negotiations began back in 1982. Subsequently in 1985, the community voted for improvements to this watershed after the Comprehensive Plan was completed. The Comprehensive Plan focused heavily on this property because of flooding in the Lomax area. Mr. Jcerns noted that Southern Pacific has future plans to add stormwater storage to the facility at Strang Yard. In order to accomplish this, they will need to close several streets within their tract. Southern Pacific has received, from the Planning and Zoning Commission, conditional approval of a General Plan for Development. Mr. Jcerns added that a construction start date for these improvements is anticipated for September. • III. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REPEAT OF LOTS 5-28 AND THE ADJACENT ALLEY OF BLOCK 133, TOWN OF LA PORTE, WffiCH IS FURTHER DESCRIBED A5 BEING LOCATED IN THE 700 BLOCK OF SOUTH BROADWAY. • • • ' Page 2 of 5 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes of February 15, 1996 • Chairman Waters opened the Public Hearing at 6:20 PM. A. PROPONENTS Gerald Hurly, of Bay Architects, addressed the Commission. Mr. Hurly reported that this request became necessary when the school district decided to make an addition to their existing facility. The property occupies a number of lots including an alley, however, the proposed addition would not cross the alley. Mr. Hurly asked for direction from the Commission as to what would be required to make this expansion possible. B. OPPONENTS There were none. Mark Lewis presented staff's report regarding the replat of Lots 5-28 and the adjacent alley of Block 133. This replat was requested by the La Porte Independent School District (owner). • Mr. Lewis informed the Commission that public notices were mailed to 49 adjacent property owners. Four were returned undeliverable and none were returned either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Lewis reported that the school district felt this replat would facilitate their near term plans and in addition, long term flexibility for use of the property. He noted an alley closing request was submitted in conjunction with the replat request. Franchise utility companies have been notified of the request to close the alley. The replat cannot be approved while the issue of the alley closing is unresolved. An easement dedication will be necessary to facilitate this request. Staff recommended the public hearing be suspended until the alley closure has been completed. IV. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. V. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REPEAT OF LOTS 5-28 AND ADJACENT ALLEY OF BLOCK 133, TOWN OF LA PORTE. A motion was made by Maggie Anderson to suspend the public hearing until the March 21, 1996, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The meeting will be held at 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers of the La Porte City Hall, 604 W. Fairmont Parkway, La • Porte, Texas. The motion was seconded by Melton Wolters. All were in favor and the motion passed. VI. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER: • • • Page 3 of 5 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes of February 15, 1996 A. REZONING REQUEST R96-001, WffiCH SEEKS A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-2 MID-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TOR-3 ffiGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FORA 12.83 ACRE TRACT OF THE WII.LIAM M. JONES SURVEY, A-482, WffiCH IS FURTHER DESCRIBED AS BEING LOCATED IN THE 8700-8800 BLOCKS OF FAIRMONT PARKWAY. 1. PROPONENTS Lewis Cline (the developer), whose offices are located in Lufkin, Texas, addressed the Commission. The proposed development is an all encompassing facility for senior citizens. 2. OPPONENTS Robert Staniszewski, of 8822 Orchard Lane, addressed the Commission. Mr. Staniszewski expressed his concern about allowing a high density facility to be located so close . to a residential neighborhood. Sandra Staniszewski, of 8822 Orchard Lane, addressed the Commission. Ms. Staniszewski noted that she and other residents of the community would like some assurance that other less desirable activities would not be allowed to replace this business, at some point in the future. Duane Witherwax, of 8727 Orchard Lane, addressed the Commission. Mr. Witherwax shared the Staniszewski's concerns. Mr. Lewis informed the Commission that this request for rezoning has been submitted in conjunction with a Special Conditional Use Permit Request for the same location. Public notices were mailed to 52 adjacent property owners. One notice was returned undeliverable for each request. No replies were received in favor of the rezoning request and nine were received in opposition. For the Special Conditional Use Permit, one was received in favor and nine were received in opposition. Mr. Lewis explained why two separate requests were necessary for this • project. B. SPECIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERNIIT REQUEST #SCU96-001 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT OF A SENIOR CITIZEN ASSISTED LIVING CENTER (SIC 8361) TO BE • Page 4 of 5 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes of February 15, 1996 LOCATED ON A 6.15 ACRE TRACT OF THE WILLIAM M. JONES SURVEY, A-482, WffiCH IS FURTHER DESCRIBED AS BEING LOCATED IN THE 8700-8800 BLOCKS OF FAIRMONT PARKWAY. 1. PROPONENTS Same as above. 2. OPPONENTS Same as above. VII. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. Chairman Waters closed the Public Hearing for Rezoning Request #R96-001. The public hearing for Special Conditional Use Permit Request #SCU96-001 was suspended. VIII. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING REZONING REQUEST #R96-001. A motion was made by Chuck Engelken to deny Rezoning Request #R96-001. The motion was seconded by Melton Wolters. All were in favor with the exception of Commission Members Maggie Anderson and Eugene Edmonds. The motion passed. IX. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING SPECIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #SCU96-001. A motion was made by Melton Wolters to suspend the public hearing for SCU96-001 to the March 21, 1996, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held at 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers of the La Porte City Hall, 604 W. Fairmont Parkway, La Porte, Texas. The motion was seconded by Chuck Engelken. All were in favor and the motion passed. Chairman Waters made a recommendation to the Commission to have staff look into the possibility of creating aninfra-district PUD for this area and bring their findings back to the March 21, 1996, meeting. X. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Rankin announced that the Kroger Company would be building a new signature store • • Page 5 of 5 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes of February 15, 1996 on Fairmont Parkway. Mr. Armstrong told the Commission that he was under a confidentiality order not to discuss the settlement of the Jan Stevenson mobile home lawsuit. The news of this settlement appeared in the Wednesday edition of the Bayshore Sun and Mr. Armstrong asked that the record show he had not divulged any information to the Bayshore Sun. XI. ADJOURN A motion was made by Eugene Edmonds to adjourn. Chairman Waters .declared the meeting duly adjourned at 7:10 PM. Respectfully submitted, Peggy Planning Department Secretary Approved on this the 21st day of March, 1996. Be aters Planning and Zoning Commission Chairmann • • SCU96-001 Staff Report March 21, 1996 • Special Conditional Use Permit Request #SCU96-001 (Revised Submittal) Requested for: A 5.637 acre tract of property out of the W.M. Jones Survey, Abstract 482, which is further described as being located in the 8700-8800 Block of Fairmont Parkway. (See Exhibit A) Requested by: Care Concepts of East Texas, Inc., Lewis Cline Purpose of Request: To allow construction of a 61 unit senior citizen Assisted Living Center. Background: The Planning and Zoning Commission, at its February 15, 1996, meeting, conducted a public hearing for the purpose of taking citizen comment regarding Special Conditional Use Permit Request #SCU96-001. After taking comments and questions, the • Commission suspended the hearing with the intention of re-opening it at the March 21, 1996, meeting. The request is now being brought back to the Commission in a somewhat amended form. It is now being presented as an infra-district P.U.D. As such, it still requires a Special Conditional Use Permit. The need for rezoning, however, is eliminated. The facility itself is still proposed to contain 61 units housed in a single, one story building. Anal: An infra-district P.U.D. is simply a P.U.D. development located in a district zoned something other than P.U.D. When considering aninfra-district P.U.D., adherence to performance standards is one of the primary concerns. Using this request as an example, the proposed facility has an assigned SIC use code of 8361. This use code is listed as conditional in R-3 zones and not permitted in R-2 zones. The tract in question is zoned R-2. As an infra-district P.U.D., the issue is not whether the use is allowed in an R-2 zone, but rather, will the specific facility being proposed conform with performance standards applicable within R-2 zones. In addition to performance standards there are a number of development standards that are specified by the Zoning Ordinance. These standards are applicable to all P.U.D. S developments. Discussion of these issues follows: Site Plan Planning and Zoning Commission. • SCU96-001 Page 2 of 9 • The Zoning Ordinance specifies that a Minor Development Site Plan be submitted in conjunction with a P.U.D. request. In the case of this project, the Minor Development Site Plan should be prepared in a form that is proper for filing and recordation with the Harris County Department of Deed Records. This has not been done as of yet. The applicant has, however, provided a detailed architectural site plan that provides a substantial portion of the information required for review of the application. While final approval of the P.U.D. should be withheld until the site plan is submitted, reviewed and approved, the site plan currently in the City's possession is adequate for determining overall compliance with ordinance guidelines. A summary of the site plan submittal packet follows. Ordinance requirements are shown in bold face type. • The entire outline, overall dimensions and area of the tract described in the application. This information is properly noted and satisfies ordinance parameters. • The use, zoning and ownership of all adjacent properties within one • hundred feet (100') of the tract boundaries including the location of all structures thereon and the right-of--way widths of all adjacent public roadways. This information is not shown. • The existing and proposed topography of the tract with contour intervals not greater than 1 foot (1'). This information is not shown. • The location, general exterior dimensions and approximate gross floor areas of all proposed buildings, or where appropriate, examples of housing units to be built on lots. This information is shown on the building construction plans submitted by the applicant and satisfies applicable ordinance and Building Code requirements. • The type of each use proposed to occupy each building aad the approximate amount of building floor are devoted to each separate use, if appropriate. • This information is shown on the building construction plans shown by the applicant and satisfies applicable-code and ordinance requirements. • The proposed location, arrangement and number of automobile Planning and Zoning Commission • SCU96-001 Page 3 of 9 parking stalls, or appropriate examples for each housing type. The applicant's site plan indicates 65 parking spaces. The Zoning Ordinance requires (based on 61 units), fifteen tenant spaces, plus one per staff member.. Staff member parking would be based on maximum employees working on a single shift and not total employees. • The proposed location, arrangement and general dimensions of all truck loading facilities, if appropriate. Loading bay location and configuration are acceptable. • The location and dimensions of all vehicular entrances, exits and driveways and their relationship to all existing or proposed district or development examples for each housing type. Driveway access to the P.U.D. will be from Fairmont Parkway. Driveway, locations, dimensions, and configurations are adequate. • The location and dimensions of all walls, fences, and plantings • designed to screen the proposed district or development from adjacent uses. More information is needed regarding these issues. They will be discussed in greater detail in subsequent sections of this report. • The general drainage system. This information has not yet been provided. • Standards for exterior signs, architectural style, landscape concepts, and other variables which will be controlled in the design of buildings in the development area. This information has not yet been provided. • Proposed exterior architectural elevations illustrating the basic design elements and material appearances. This information has been provided as part of the project's building construction plans submittal. Construction Schedule • The applicant shall submit a proposed schedule of construction. If the construction of the proposed Planned Unit Development is to be in stages, then the components contained in each stage must be clearly Planning and Zoning Commission. • SCU96-001 Page 4 of 9 • delineated. In addition, the Developer or Subdivider must submit a General Plan in accordance with the requirements of the City of La Porte Development Ordinance. Said General Plan shall be submitted prior to the submission of a Development Site Plan or Preliminary Plat, as the case may be. The development schedule shall indicate the approximate starting date and the approximate completion date of the complete Development Plan. This information has not yet been provided. Minimum Project Size • The tract of land for which a Planned Unit Development-General Residential project is proposed and permit requested shall contain not less than five (~ acres of land. The tract in question consists of 5.637 acres. Required Frontase • • The tract of land for which a project is proposed and permit requested shall not have less than two hundred feet (200') of frontage on a public right-of--way. The tract in question has 254 feet of frontage along Fairmont Parkway. Yards • The front, rear and side yard restrictions at the periphery of the Planned Unit Development site, at a minimum, shall be the same as imposed in the respective districts. The setbacks proposed for the facility are approximately 67 feet to the front, approximately 616 feet to the rear, 64 feet to the east side, and 10 feet to the west side. These setbacks satisfy R-2 requirements (30 feet front, 20 feet rear, 10 feet side). There is, however, an additional setback provision that will be discussed in the next paragraph. • No building shall be nearer than its building height to the rear or side property line when such line abuts an "R-1" or "R-2" use direct. Based on a review of the building construction plans that have been submitted to the city, it appears the proposed building will be twelve feet in height. This is when measured as specified by Zoning Ordinance Section 3-100 (page 11). This will require that the setback adjacent to the Planning and Zoning Commission. SCU96-001 Page 5 of 9 • P.U.D's western boundary line be increased by two feet from ten to twelve feet. • No building shall be located less than fifteen feet (15') from the back of the curb line along those roadways which are part of the internal street pattern. This will be discussed in a subsequent section of this report. It may be necessary to dedicate a private street within the facility. If this is done, it will be necessary to increase the separation between the eastern face of the building and the driveway that would become a private road. Landscaping and Screening • The entire site other than that taken up be structures or landscaping shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and drainage. All open areas of the property that are not landscaped or paved will be grassed. Grass provides adequate dust control. • • A drainage system subject to the approval of the Director of Planning shall be installed. A Minor Development Site Plan must be submitted for this project. Drainage plans will be specified on the site plan. • Developments abutting an "R-1", "R-2", "R-3" or MH district shall be screened and landscaped in compliance with required screening and landscaping for the specific use involved as required in Sections 6 & 7, Table B. The northern and western faces of the property in question abut the Brookglen Subdivision. The eastern face abuts undeveloped R-2 property. These property faces will require landscape screening. The screening plants must be evergreen and of a type and size that they can be reasonably expected to form an effective visual screen within two years of planting. The final planting pan, which must receive approval from the Director of Planning, will be considered a component of the overall landscape plan. Property Controls • In order that the purpose of this section may be achieved, the property shall be in single ownership or under the management and supervision of a central authority or otherwise subject to such supervisory lease or ownership control as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Ordinance. • • • - Planning and Zoning Commission SCU96-001 Page 6 of 9 • • Prior to the use or occupancy or sale or the execution of contracts for sale of an individual buildwg unit, parcel, tract, townhouse, apartment, or common area, a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions or an equivalent docmnents shall be filed with the City of La Porte; said filing with the City to be made prior to the filing of said declaration or documents or plans with the recording officers of Harris County. • Prior to recording in Harris County Deed Records, approval of the City of La Porte shall be secured as to the documents described in paragraph (b) above. • The declaration of covenants, conditions or restrictions or equivalent document shall specify that deeds, leases or documents of conveyance affecting buildings, units, parcels, tracts, townhouses, or apartments shall subject said properties to the terms of said declaration. Although this facility is, for the present, to consist of a single building under single ownership, staff recommends that the property be bound by covenants, prepazed and filed in accordance with the provisions of the • preceding pazagraphs. Specific terms of the covenants should include the following: • Tenancy shall be restricted to persons aged 55, or older. • Clear responsibility for maintenance of landscaping, screening, fencing, and undeveloped portions of the property. • Clear responsibility for maintenance of all stormwater drainage systems located on site including swales, channels, and detention facilities. • Cleaz responsibility for maintenance of private roads located with the P.U.D. • A cleaz statement specifying and limiting the future use of undeveloped portions of the property. • Architectural standards (buildings and signage). • The funding mechanism to be used to provide for maintenance items specified by covenants. • • A cleaz statement specifying the parties responsible for administration and enforcement of covenants. These covenants should be submitted. for review and comment by the City • • Planning and Zoning Commission SCU96-001 Page 7 of 9 Attorney's office. They should not be released for recordation until such time as the City Attorney deems them to be satisfactory in terms of form and content. No building permit for the project should be approved or released until the approved covenants have been filed for recordation with Harris County Deed Records. Public Services The proposed project shall be served by the City water and sewer system and fire hydrants shall be installed at such locations as necessary to provide fire protection. Proposed utility connections shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. As has been noted, prior to final approval of the project, a Minor Development Site Plan must be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval. Specific utility connection points will be evaluated as part of the site plan review. For the purposes of this report, however, staff would note the following: • Sanitary sewer, in adequate capacity to serve the facility, is available from the adjacent Brookglen Subdivision. As proposed, sewer demand from the facility will not impact the ability to provide service to future R-2 development in the area. • Potable water is not readily available, but can be extended to serve the site. Although they can be handled under the umbrella of a single request, what in essence will be two separate extensions will be required. The first will make water available by extending water along the Fairmont Parkway property face. The second extension will be for the purpose of providing internal fire protection to the facility. This extension must run north from Fairmont Parkway and will ultimately have one or more fire hydrants installed on it. The line and hydrants must be located within a dedicated utility easement. The easement should extend through the full depth of the tract. This is for the purpose of providing access for future water and fire protection to adjacent undeveloped property located both within and outside the boundaries of the subject tract. Roadways Private roadways within the project shall have an improved surface to twenty four feet (24') or more in width and shall be so designed as to permit the City fire trucks to provide protection to each building. No portion of this required twenty four foot (24') road system may be used in calculating . required off-street parking space or be used for parking. As presently designed, there are no private roads within the facility's perimeters. The northern portion of the tract is to remain undeveloped at this time. Future access must, however, be provided for as part of the facility's initial design • • • Planning and Zoning Commission SCU96-001 Page 8 of 9 process. As presently drawn, the facility site plan indicates a twenty foot wide driveway that is to be located along the eastern face of the building. It appears that this drive is intended to provide access to the rear of the facility as well as the undeveloped portion of the site. Under the circumstances, staff would recommend the following: • The driveway be treated as a private access road; and • As such, it be widened to 24 feet in order to provide access for emergency vehicles. Performance or "density intensity" standards in effect within R-2 zones are established by Ordinance Section 5-700. :7 Based on the 61 units proposed for the facility and the 5.637 acres available, overall density will be 10.8 units per acre. This is very close to the 10 unit per acre limit established for quadreplex townhomes, one of the highest density permitted R-2 uses. Future units constructed on the undeveloped portion of the site would of course significantly impact overall density and would, therefore, require careful review and consideration. Future development should also hold to R-2 Density parameters. Staff would recommend as a condition of the SCU approval, that any site development beyond that which is presently proposed, require a new SCU permit. Conclusion: The application for SCU96-001 substantially complies with ordinance requirements. However, due to outstanding items, it would be premature to recommend City Council approval. Staff will be willing to recommend approval (with certain conditions) once the following items have been addressed. • A Minor Development Site Plan has been reviewed and approved. by the City. • Side building setbacks have been adjusted as necessary. • Internal access to the northern portion of the tract is adequately provided for by provision of a private street (minimum width, 24 feet). • Adequate provisions are made for fire protection and potable water service to the interior portions of the tract. • P.U.D. covenants are submitted for City review and approval. • Adequate landscape/screening plans are developed. _ ~ • • Planning and Zoning Commission SCU96-001 • Page 9 of 9 The conditions to be attached to approval would be as follows: • Any development beyond that currently presented will require a separate Special Conditional Use Permit. • No changes, or amendments shall be made to the recorded site plan and covenants without first obtaining authorization from the City of La Porte. • • • • • t!'o~ 9 0436 6t.W. 2Sy' .~14:o_~ao'eS , i~p'~ q ~ ~ `I M' emu:, :y---1 ~1~ e~+~ua I~WV/4r~Y A2iM I~ 1 ~ .. a p d ~ ~ .. 1~1r I:~~ j I i I!';I II ~ i~l~ I I III h ~~ ~ fi ~~~~ .. ,~~ , ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ , ~~ ~"~ ; III v` ~ , I' I ) ~' I ~, q,a., ~~ I~~' Iti .,I.I • I~ ~ ,; i ••~ !+~ ~I yl. L~ ( I I~ '; i r ~•- ... _. ~ . ..uB7.o7.+I1B Zsq~. ~ • vy.~r~r..n.~...n M01~~AIIdMI[C1U11C1 f bWNFJi ~ ~ •~ ~'. ~ ~ '~'~ f •~'' (lry !' ~`' }'i , hJc slur k: enoww co-iet r , ~ F/dNwAY FOUIfI[C1~ wv ~ INb~PENbENT ~.IVIN(~ =1 • ~. . , , r sox eos ~ »c ~eo~e Cou+csncK eoaa cwwrMOas o t s ~ L: , wrwM, lx, ~soo i ., v d. ~ Y ~ ys. ~ ,; C:Oi~IMUNI'1`1f - ~ er5 • ~ ,t . ~ : I S b . ~" , x •rr ~ '~' ' _ - i i~oo~ ~af•eesr a ~+oa~ a:ra~~: .; 3o•Q~ 10 '. Uool (. ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ;,i.~ , y ~y F~~~;:3~d ,