Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-19-1996 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of the La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission• • MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMNIISSION MEETING DECEMBER 19, 1996 Members Present: Chairman Betty Waters, Commission Members Chuck Engelken, Eugene Edmonds, Dottie Kaminski, Melton Wolters, Howard Ebow, Michael Meredith Members Absent: City Staff Present: Director of Planning Guy Rankin, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Inspection Secretary Jasmine Ardion I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order by Chairman Waters at 6:00 PM. II. APPROVE NIINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 21, 1996, PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING. A motion was made by Melton Wolters to approve the minutes of the November 21, 1996, meeting. The motion was seconded by Chuck Engelken. All were in favor and the motion passed. III. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ZONE CHANGE REQUEST #R96-008, WffiCH HAS BEEN REQUESTID FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE 3800 BLOCK OF UNDERWOOD ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A ZONE CHANGE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) AND MID- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) TO NEIGHBORHOOD CONIlVIERCIAL (N.C.). Mr. Rankin reported that the applicant, Earl W. Wilburn, requested a zone change for 7.26 acres of land located at the comer of Fairmont Parkway and Underwood Road. A zone change would facilitate his marketing efforts to have a grocery store placed on the property. The current Land Use Plan indicates that this land should be zoned residential. Mr. Rankin noted that several changes in the area have occurred since the original zoning. These changes include a new subdivision, a growth in population in the area and improvements to Underwood Road. Mr. Rankin noted that a large grocery store could not be located in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone. Stores such as those normally found in a strip center would be allowed in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone. Mr. Rankin indicated that another option for the applicant would be to request the property be zoned Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). Eleven notices for the public hearing were mailed to surrounding property owners. One was received in favor of the zone change and none were received in opposition. • • Page 2 of 2 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes of December 19, 1996 A. PROPONENTS Earl W. Wilburn, Jr., 4100 Westheimer, Suite 254, Houston, TX, addressed the Commission. Mr. Wilburn explained that his efforts to market this 7.26 acres as single family residential have failed due in part to the tract's close proximity to the Exxon Service Station located on the corner. Mr. Wilburn added that he is marketing a total of 31 acres with 24 of the acres being marketed as single family residential. B. OPPONENTS There were none. IV. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Waters closed the Public Hearing at 6:20 PM. V. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ZONE CHANGE REQUEST #R96-008. A motion was made by Howard Ebow to recommed to City Council, approval of Zone Change Request #R96-008. The motion was seconded by Michael Meredith. The motion passed with all members voting in favor, with the exception of Mr. Edmonds who voted in opposition. VI. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Rankin distributed a list of all new commercial construction. VII. ADJOURN Chairman Waters declared the meeting duly adjourned at 6:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, Peggy ~ Planning Department Secretary Approved on this the 16th day of January, 1997. ,~ Be T. ters Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman • Woods on the Bay Townhomes Section 2, Replat • I & F Corp., Te;cas I 15 E. Tropicana Ave Las Vegas, iW 89109 December 19, 1996 City of LaPorte Planning and Zoning Commission LaPorte, TX Dear Commissioners: • We are submitting to the Commission for your review and approval a replatiing of Section 2, Blocks 10,11,12,13,14, 15 and 16 of Woods on the Bay (see attached replat). I & F, Corp., Texas, devdoper is requesting approval of Iot changes. The four lots in Block 10 will have no changes. They are existing townhomes occupied by P~P~y owners. In Block 11, Section 2 the number of lots are increased on the replat from three lots to four. The lot sizes in this block are 32' x 65'. The five lots in Block 12, Section 2 will be resized to 28.83' x 69'. The three Lots in Block 13, Section 2 ,have been resized to 32' x 6~'. The three Iots is Block 14 remain unchanged as they aze existing townhomes. The five lots in Block 15 will be reduced to four lots of the following sizes; Lot 1 is 47' x 95.5', Lots 2 and 3 are 45'x 95.5', and Lot 4 is approximately 47' x 95.5' and are being changed from townhome use to patio home use. The six lots in Block 16 are being reduced from six lots to four lots and are approximately 49' x 95.5'. They also aze changed from townhome use to patio home use. The total Iots in section 2 will be reduced from 29 to 27 accordingly. ~~S~L~ ] ~~~~ • • Page 2 The developer, I 8t F, Corp., Texas has met with, discussed, and obtained approval of the changes in Section 2 by all property owners or trustees within that section. The property owners have signed the original replat and their signatures notarized accordingly. We are presently obtaining notarized signatures on the replat of all mortgage companies with liens on the properties within Section 2.We respectively request your approval at the January 16, Planning and Zoning Meeting. cerely, ~ (~ ~~~ Jeri Murphy, Representative, I 8t F. Corp., Texas cc: Toyo Izumi Alan Brown Attachments Phone: #471-9108 #482-9034 • Staff Report Replat Request January 16, 1997 Woods on the Bay Townhomes, Section 2, Replat Requested For: 3.679 Acres, W.P. Harris Survey, A-30, Harris Co., Texas Requested By: I & F Corp., Texas Location: 2601 Old Hwy. 146, La Porte, Texas ZOning: High Density Residential, (R-3) Background: Blocks 10 and 14 are the only two (2) blocks that will not be affected by the proposed replat. The lots in these blocks currently have dwellings located on them. As you can see by Exhibit A, the proposed replat adds or enlarges some lots by reducing the size of others. The applicants desire to build both patio and townhomes on the remaining lots. In Block 11, the replat would change the original three (3) lots to four (4) lots. Each of the lots would be 32' X 65'. In Block 12, the replat would change the original four (4) lots to five (5) lots. Each of the lots would be approximately 28' X 69'. In Block 13, the replat would reduce the widths of Lot 1 and Lot 3, increasing the depth and width of Lot 2. Each of the lots would be 32' X 65'. In Block 15, the replat would change the original five (5) lots to only four (4) lots. Lot 1 would be 47' X 95.5', Lots 2 & 3 would be 45' X 95.5' and Lot 4 would be approximately 47' X 95.5'. These lots are being changed to allow for patio homes in lieu of townhomes. The change in use requires the addition of (3) 5' Maintenance Easements and (4) 10' Building Lines. In Block 16, the replat would change the original six (6) lots to only four (4) lots. Each of the lots would be 49' X 95.5'. These lots are being changed to allow for patio homes in lieu of townhomes. The change in use requires the addition of (3) 5' Maintenance Easements and (4) 10' Building Lines. • • Woods on the Bay Page 2 of 4 1/16/97 At the October 17, 1996 Planning & Zoning Meeting, in regards to the replat of Block 11, there was citizen concern regarding the view of the bay. This concern has been addressed by the applicant. The previous request showed going from the original three (3) to five (5) lots which involved moving the lots to the north thus impairing proposed visibility. The replat request provided at this time proposes going from the original three (3) lots to four (4) lots. The reduction in lot sizes allows this to occur without having to move the lots to the north. An exhibit showing the original lots and the proposed lots are attached. (See Exhibit B) The proposed changes will not include any change to existing utility easements or deed restrictions for the subdivision. The depths of some of the lots have been increased by incorporating all or part of existing utility easements into the overall lot size. The developer has obtained approval from all of the twelve existing property owners. Analysis: Under the terms of Section 4.07 of Development Ordinance 1444, a replat of all or a portion of a subdivision may be released for recordation and deemed valid and controlling when the following conditions have been satisfied: A. The plat has been signed and acknowledged by only the owners of the particular property which is being replatted or resubdivided. • The replat document has been properly prepared for signature by the owners of the property in question. B. The replat does not attempt to alter, amend, or remove any subdivision covenants or restrictions. • The replat will in no way impact or violate the deed restrictions currently adopted for Woods On The Bay, Section 2, nor will the replat abrogate any restrictions noted on the original Woods On The Bay, Section 2 plat document. • • Woods on the Bay Page 3 of 4 1/16/97 C. There is compliance with Sections 212.014 and 212.015 of the V.T.C.A. Local Government Codes. • These are the sections of State Law dealing with platting and replatting. The provisions relevant to this request require that for the previous five years, zoning designation and deed restrictions limiting development to no more than two dwellings per lot have been in place. The City's R-l, Low Density Residential designations, which have been in place for well over five years, satisfies this requirement. As noted in the preceding section of this report, deed restrictions satisfy this requirement and are not at issue. D. The replat has been approved by the Commission after being prepared and filed as though it were an original plat as specified in Section 4.04 of the Development Ordinance. • There are some items in need of addition or correction, however, the form or content of the plat document could be approved by the Commission, subject to the items shown on the Development Ordinance Checklist (Exhibit B). E. All expenses incurred by the City or the subdivider in the replat process shall be home by the subdivider, including the costs for notice of the public hearing. • The costs of public hearing have been tabulated and will be paid by the applicants prior to the replat being released for recordation. The cost of notice for this hearing totals $50.26. A payment by the applicant, of money in lieu of park land dedication, will not be applicable since the total number of lots in the subdivision are reduced from 28 to 27. However, in accordance with the City's Development Ordinance #1444, the plat fee for the new final plat, should the proposed Woods on the Bay, S. 2 replat be approved, will be $50.00. This fee is in addition to the public hearing costs. • Woods on the Bay Page 4 of 4 1/16/97 Conclusion: In Block 12, which is intended for townhome use, the approximate azea for each of the five (5) lots is 1,989 squaze feet. The City's zoning ordinance requires 2,000 square feet. In Block 15, which is intended for patio home use, the approximate azea for each of the three (3) lots is 4,488 square feet. The zoning ordinance requires 4,500 square feet. The existing plat does not show the size or location of existing water and sewer lines in the subdivision nor how the revised lots will be served. Also, the plat does not identify which lots have existing buildings. This information could be helpful in the future: Staff recommends the addition of this information at this time. Staff fords the requested replat of Woods On The Bay Townhomes, Section 2, Subdivision satisfies applicable provisions of State Law and City Ordinance. The Development Ordinance Checklist has been attached for review. (See Exhibit C) We, therefore, recommend Commission approval of the Final Plat with the condition that the replat not be released for recordation until recommended changes referenced in this report have been made and all fees specified in this report have been paid. r~ U • Exhibits i' ~ nP k +- r~~~y ~ ~`~9~9 i~ 9~~~ ` " r~ a4p,~ e p 9 '~ s~s.~~ ~~ t~~ ,~ ~ ~! ~~;~ , 84i +,~ra ~~ 3 j - - a e; a a b V y ~ ~ \ _ 4 nc~ ~ °" b ~ v c), ~ <yy(~ ~ ~p~) L ' o~~o I ion ~ : ~, Z.~y v y~0 ~ pg °~2p vy !ti~~b G ~waM~° M~:Oy ,~ N voyM ~ ~4~ N ~ w y a nl er n ~ ~ A y ~~ ~ ~ M y ii i I I ~ ~~~ ~,~ ~~ ~ ~ a p ~ai i ~ I aat ~ o ~ ,~ ~ i • p~~ i ~ , i'~~ I ~ ~.~~ Ili 4 6•?~ ~ a' ~ qg i~ ~ ~ q ~ ~ a t ~ ~ ~ p9.i ta•a p ~ ,~ ~~ ~ ~ ' ~ p ~~~ F~~~ a~ ~ i a~ ~ ~~ pp f ~ ~ a A6~ ~ ~ ~4 ~~ i~p ~ ~ i i 4 ~~ .,, i I i i I I I I I I lersr..•r s.oo F- I .I ~.: ~I . ~' > I ry F {• ~; ~ I I _ r L_ _ _ '~ _ I-- - ° 'I ~ :ti ~~ ~_ --- ~I I 'I I I I I I ., I A I ;rl I ,I I ;I I I ~-- s ~I '; _.. I ~... I r, ~ _ NO'07'16'E r ~ f0.7g• /- ~ -. ~ \, I al p ,,, ' .; N I VVI ,~I ., I ~ \\ I \r S II~~gB'W _ _ ~ ~. ~ I J I ~ - -~ I ~S -- ¢ ~- -'- n U N ~~I I I Inl_v l Uv I O" I ,. °,; ~ I I ^ I~r I_. _ I r ' ~ -1 ~u o~ ~I uY oa I ^~ I ryl ,iU I '- 7V 1 °' 65.00' " ~~ II II I ( IL- ~ I- - v ; s' \ \ . ~ .~ n ` r ~~~ ~ o z Y M ~ I N r~ ~ f' N~ ~` ~ 4 y •` ~ p ~ IR 1` t igd ~ ~' ~ ~ a ~ g ,ti ea 7~lR~ I d M1Y~' i- # ;I~~i~'i~i ~~ ~~ iii ~"t~ ~i~ Aso, ,~ v ~~~~;~~llc6i ~'p ~ d Af~ i~: `~~* 1---llrwn,M,rr~~..ll _._ ,~~~t;~ ~~';, CI ~a ~~~~ pia ~! ~~~~ J,,,.°F..,,~ ~ _. ~~ • • f -- --~ ---. rt ` i i •r--•Ft~ r~ _ _ ~ ~' ~~ ~~ ~ ~ I • L-_- L_ .-:~ MJ ~----_J nyE YC_. S6? PQ ICT , k C. Y. R. I I II It .t I '__ a• J L_•_ _ ~ I No•ot'la•E----J i--~ Di ~'• '- ---- _ N0~'~ ' SB9.37'!I'E ,l _'~ 3 ~ ~ ~ I /R00' r ~R00' ti !~ S dlrSr II •E1 ~ ~ I3.S0' I + • ' I I * • 1 _ ; ~ I 3 Y s I ~ = I ~ ~ I• 2 SLOCX /0 o !: a ~ L_ J o I ! r+ • I c I' I ~ rr u•r / ~I P I I a l I rw•ar« r • F j. ww _.' ~-~~~ Is' Yn i~1~Errwwr ~L~ '~ " , \~. I I I I - _- --_ i ~-~~ .-_-_ -~-~ \\ ~ I ~~ s I t ~• I COMYON AREA i f~ \\~\ \\ 4~' .' .~ I I: I y I ' n•frw•a ~ ~ • \ ~ I c I I ~ ~' ~~ I ~ I I 11 2 t I 3 ; I: I l o l A7ACA' !2 !! ;y I ~ • fT«, a 2 s~ I I ~ ~T = A ~ r fr• •r i Ef......_..,, t ~ e Y• _~__ i ( -~ r arv••r _-. - - i~~ '~. ~• h• Ylllit- Eafrrnt . I - ~,. _ • ATlrl7N'7 II:.JS' . rtw• J _ _' 1 z, ~ _ ~~ • ' . -" ! ~. Y:(1 S!D . I ~~- • _ i '. ~~o~s ` oN T ~ ~ • • HE BA Y TOINNHOMES . sFCr~oN r_wo _ A SUBDIV/S10N QF ~3 ~~7~•r uI•IIC'I~~ - 1 6ALVfSTON rrea •r rn rd tpr wu Rfr MA/ N.LS la i ~j M !' 1 ,;•:., I ,~ ear \ ~\ .i\ . ~ < i 'i i f _t r ~ o~ 1 \ S, ~, ~l ~ \ ~A. - 4• i C .'~ ~ it • ~ .fir A ~. '`ri.oE ~. ' j :~_ - • _ - • •'~' ~ ,. ~- r ~r • ~ Y Irn'r ft A14 /b/ w w~lW Ah tl,~I%IJ irr /`a ~ -.1 a ..'~ ~ a ~.s~yy :• • /rr ib !Ar O/~r 1 4 Arh rrwlly h Ar wI r'r T _" '~~yi.•!"• - ~ . rrllr~fr/~ iaz• r dwerra%~4y,~~ _ ~4~ "t....~ f~rr-t ~ . r. J • .. rrw uriiywy~ 1r .d AYeb 4•ww~w ! n~ -- f ~~ '-~.~^~.•.s~l .. ? orrrrr we d~N pryw/j. w+rr wilYa K yrina *' w•'::r ~-. ..c '~~~~°" :. r. _ ' _ 3 At~F •i ~~ r1 r}~w h A• Ara ral f#sb r}.•iliM - i ft y~ ~ ~ R V~ ~~ +•a rMir fY. .r..rw ffa~\A~ril~~ 's't~.~$.: `r•. t -- ,~•. ~-~ ~. ' a Yw .f.sl+y r.ir .At.f iriA.a are A~.dwat AC w AVT• .,s ,wa ~,. '. ,y„ ~, ~'i ~ ~ory.anf rfoe.nee ~ jQ''k_~nars •sr.r ' '_ •"'C':- ?~•" y ~. • L: .~ ry - ..• , /. Lrdrrffrl ~ Ltwdl, OwHnw rrI .. n+ • - a1 Ifltrr w /!1r (~r w/ •r MArI[~/F ~~1 4 ~:.2` _~ • .Y~:w ..`M `' . <,~-- fan fa na.~: - ~ a ~ ~ _ ..t town er w.n: • ~.., ~ "` t '~, 7rrr• r r..I b /rw. prrran nr+ w, rWj NYL,/rrd IYnant, r ~rrl frrlrn w trr':~ py~ 1i~r t".. ~~ IwI hrtlwM ~P K Wars. ~ rr N ~r ~irY, j rwi // Mr Agrsf nisi J Mr /frM!•4M~w~i~ i ~,y Syr • . h 1rr .f Mr, Pnfa, ArY! iwrf rnd~ 7irrArrrs, SdiM 1Y•, 1 Afry~, wJf /rY:7irwr re/ MJ/ IAwrij 4 "y; •.. l rwhf '9 ~rN 1Awrr llruw MI ~+r/r riI rM/•'rrs~a rr •rFr{ r >~ ` •• _ `~ rnr• SR~HR 7M' M /M ~/ A/Y ,i .I~•~O. 41 M/t ~~ r!• ..J• eri Min rod y'lrf• h fwrr~r{ „/ .y/e,~la'r7. /y*u pray, !trrf; fti d 'lrrah A+d rrsJwes, - 1~rNS Iirr AfAf h Mr 4N N d«L ant n1+rr, l~lrlb MI ~i i ~ N (i Y • • n) rJMr M~rrw Nrr! rre iy.+dfl r /h~fa wjr, Ord ur rrr~rrl 1Lr fr[/rr•r ~_~}_ I~ a«O ru6/.'.wirr, YArr lirllrr, fM rff .•f ./~ r'>'°'1 fffUwf ~ .• ~Il ~ ~ M ~ ~~ su4h tqp in.J.rr, rn/ r. ~Y Mah ~ , A, p . P ~" ' 1 . ~~ ~~/ • . ~ _, ~~.eoxcTG~~.c // `LGT~,S / , ir~tsQu Ti/~~ \ ~~~nor/ L • • CITY OF LA PORTS DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE CHECKLIST FINAL PLATS (APPENDIX D) Development Name: woods on the Bay Townhomes 2 Type of Development: Residential Subdivision Location: 2601 Oid Hwy 146 Date of Commission Review: January 16, 1997 F.~hibit C • • CITY OF LA PORTS DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE CHECKLIST FINAL PLATS (APPENDIX D) FINAL PLATS MUST CONTAIN ALL ELEMENTS OF THE APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT PLUS THE FOLLOWING: GRAPHIC CONTENTS: SHOWN ~ ~ iyce 1. Name of owner C~ a company or (%) ( ) ( ) corporation, Gst name and tale of authorized representative). 2. Name of registered engineer or surveyor ~ (%) ( ) ( ) who prepared Fnal Plat. 3. Legal boundary description of subdivision, (X) ( ) ( ) consisting of a metes and bounds description of each line between each boundary point. This descxiption may be in written or tabular form. 4. Legal and special statements.' where ( ) ( ) ( ) appropriate: a. Owners' Acknowledgement (%) ( ) ( ) (Enclosure 1) b. Lienholders' Subordination (%) ( ) ( ) Agreement (Enclosure 2) c. Plat Accuracy Certificate (%) ( ) ( ) (See Appendix ~ d. Final Survey Certificate (%•) ( ) ( ) (See Appendbc ~ e. Approving Authority Certificate (g) ( ) ( ) (Enclosure 3) f. Amending Plat Certificate ( ) ( ) (g ) (Enclosure 4) g. Vacation of Subdivision Plat ( ) ( ) (% ~ (Enclosure 5) h. Harris County Clerk Filing (%) ( ) ( ) Statement (Enclosure 6) i. Return A1ap Agreement (%) ( ) ( ) (Enclosure ~ j. Speaal Statements (%) ( ) ( ) (Enclosure 8) F.zhibit C • • • Development Ordinance Checklist Fnal Plats (Appendix D) SHOWN Y N N/A DOC UMENTATION: 1. Proposed Streets: Submit complete public ( ) ( ) (%) street construction drawings for approval by the Director of Community Development (See PICM for criteria for street construction documents.) 2. Proposed U6'fiGes: Submit complete public ( .) ( ) ( ~ u6Tdy construction drawings for approval by the Director (See PICM for criteria for utility construction documents.) 3. Coordinate I'~stina: A complete list of ( ) ( ) (% ) coordinates for each point to be marked in the final field survey. Each point on the I'~st is to be assigned a unique number code. A copy of the Fnal Plat, marked with the locations of each number code, is to be submitted as well. 4. Util'dv Company Letters: Letters from ( ) ( ) (% ) servicing utility companies approving the easements shown on the plat for their use. 5. Private Easements: A copy of the ( ) ( ) (%.) instrument(s) establ'~shing private easement(s) within the subdivision. 6. Private Easement Holders Consent: A ( ) ( ) (% ) letter, statement or instrument from the holder of any privately owned easement or fee strip within the subd'nrision boundaries approving any crossings of said existing easement or fee strip by proposed streets, utilities, or easements shown on the plat. If adjustment of e>asting utilifies is required, said letter shall speafy the nature of the adjustments and the approval of the owner for such adjustment F.zhibit C Development Ordinance Checklist Final Plats (Appendix D) 7. Residential Parkland: Receipt for payment in lieu of required dedication of parkland, pursuant to Section 12.05 of the Ordinance or instrument of dedication pursuant to Section 12.10 of the Ordinance. 8. Conditional Aooroval Document: Any documents specified by the City Planning Commission in conditionally approving the Preliminary Plat. Comments: • SHOWN Y N N/A ( ) ( ? (g) ( ) ( ) (g) ~ ~ "~ Signature: i : ~'l.~ ,~ ~ ;'}'Y~,1~ Date: 01-07-~7 F.shibit C • • ~,ooD va~~alvcE ~QuEST #FV 97-001 CI'T'Y OF LA PORTS ..<.~ ~ c, ~~ PLANNING AND ZONING COM1vIISSION i ~ _ a ~ _y ~ _ VARIANCE REQUEST _ . _ . _ ~ ~~./jl~ Application No.: , ' ~ ~ ~ 9 % - O o / OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received: / ~ -s - 4 ~ Receipt No.: --- Applicant: ,L ~~ ~ ~ 8T-~ e ~~~ ~~ ° - 7/- .303 Address Phone I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized to act on my behalf in this matter. ~ /~ Owner: ~ a'1 ~ ~. ~ h/u" .SE Address Phone I am requesting a variance to Sect. D Variance Procedures of the City Flood Damage Prevention No. 33 I am requesting this variance for property located at ~02~ ~ ~~. L.,A ~ IF~ Street Address' ~ ~ ?- ~ l ,~' _ _~ .~~ Legal Description (~ite Plan ()Minor Development Site Plan ()Major Development Site Plan ()General Plan A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the information requested below on the following pages of this form. a) All facts concerning the matter that has led up to this request. b) The type of relief I am seeking. c) The grounds upon which I am making this request. ... * If applicant is NOT the owner, he must provide Authorization to act on the Owner's behalf. /1 ' Date ~ ,,l Applicant's Signature Office Use Only Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes () No ( ) Date transmitted to the Planning and Zoning: Meeting Date: Applicant Notified of Date: Notice to surrounding property owners -Date: Planning and Zoning: Approved () Denied ( ) Notice of Planning and Zoning mailed to Anulicant/Owner: • • 2 1) The Planning and Zoning Commission of La Porte, as appointed and established by the City Council of La Porte, is designated the Appeal Board and shall hear and render judgement on requests for variances from the requirements of this ordinance. 2) The Appeal Board shall hear and render judgement on an appeal only when it is alleged there is an error in any requirement, decision, or determination made by the Floodplain Administrator in the enforecemnt or a~minict~hon of this Ordinance. 3) Any person or persons aggrieved by the decision of the Appeal Board may appeal such decision in the courts of competent jurisdiction. 4) The Floodplain Administrator shall maintain a record of all actions involving an appeal and shall report variances to the Federal Emergency Management Agency upon request. 5~ Variances may be issued for the reconstruction, rehabilitation or restoration of structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the State Inventory of Historic Places, without regard to the procedures set forth in the remainder of this Ordinance. ~ Variances may be issued for new construction aad substantial improvements to be erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in size continuous to and surrounded by lots with exsting structures constructed below the base flood level, providing the relevant factors in Section C (2) of this Article have been fully considered. As the lot size increases beyond the one-half acre, the technical justification required for issuing the variance increases. 'n Upon consideration of the factors noted above the intent of this Ordinance, the Appeal Board may attach such conditions to the granting of variances at it deems necessary to further the purpose and objective of this Ordinance (Article 1, Section C). - 8) Variances shall not be issued within any designated flovdway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. 9) Prerequisites for granting variances: a. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. b. Variances shall only be issued upon, (i) showing a good and sufficient cause; (ii) a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii) a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or Ordinances. c. Any application to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice that the structwre will be permitted to be built with the lowest floor elevation below the base flood elevation, and that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk resulting rom the reduced lowest floor • • 3 elevation. 10) Variances may be issued by a La Porte for new construction and substantial improvements and for other development necessary for the conduct of a functionally dependent use provided that (i) the criteria outlined in Article 4, Section D (1)-(9) are met, and (ii) the structure or other development is protected by methods that minimize flood damages during the base flood and create no additional threats to the public safety. FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER: /. ~~rluc~,-zf,~e ~S eXrsT~~fG . ~NC~osu~ e v~ -Paris tiny ~ r S ~~~ w ~ ~~ N o T C ~ ~1 rr2 ~-t.o «~ ~~ ~ ~~,4~f~ --~ 2a e ~~ ~ L ey2,Ls ~ u ~1 ~N U ~ ~s~ ~(.o~ ~ D / s c~,~-,~6 ~ ~ ~ D Q n r ~~ ~-,•~ce / 5 3 3 S QC • ~ ~ e s ~2 i ge /vt e,~~ ~5 a ~ /P~ ~~/L°i.yG ~~~oi~~ 5 ES . ~12E'Se S S~~fP.~-e.~i5 ~~,e No.~ ~~~ ~ ~P~ v ~ Y 1 7 ~ ~ S ~°UCP2 ~ ~~ m (r5 I~. ~-' ~ /i e P~J I ~ 5 u ~~? i n~ ~2 C ~1 ~ y~ S ~J (~. N P~/P.IL /N~)~o, ~,2 e Orr-r i is ~.rn~. c. ~ TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT: lie ~c,v~E~, ' 1 ~ S U !~-ri ~ e.r b ~ ~~S ~Zc.~ c ~t o .-~ L '~2~ ti.., -~ '+0 2 N C c.o 5 ~, { ~i , `, i~ 2 . / 5 5 vL/~'N C~ Q t" ~~ ~~ ~ T /~~ 61 cc. ! r2 e S f~ (/f}-r2/ f}-,vC 2 (; / ~ ~j ~ it ~ ~ l~~lnr~lOl~ ~~:%L(C ~o_SC2.~ C3~a~ C. ~~ ~ • • 4 THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST: ~~ ~- S q V //~03 LE ~ ~ ~-c ~ ce 5'~u ~ ~ /tt,c. !~-cc 5 ~ iv e s S n 1 ~ Q~7`e • Staff Report Flood Variance Request #FV 97-001 January 16, 1997 Requested For: 1026 South 8th Street which is further described as Lots 17-32; Blk. 172; Town of La Porte. Property Zone: General Commercial (G.C.) Flood Information: Property located in a Floodway Area in Zone AE (See Exhibit A) Rice nested BX: Mattie Margaret Lindsey; Property Owner Purpose of Request: A request for a flood variance to allow the owner to build in a floodway. The variance is requested under the provisions of Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance No. 1533, Article 4, Section D. Applicant : On October 18, 1996 the Chief Building Official denied a building permit. The applicant seeks a variance to build in the floodway. The applicant claims she is building on an existing slab and would not impact the floodway. Background: The City of La Porte is charged with protecting the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of La Porte as to preventing flood hazards. Specifically, the Planning Department acts as the Flood Plain Admininstrator for the City of La Porte. The authority for managing the flood plain is derived from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and is described in Ordinance 1533. The following is an excerpt of Ordinance 1533. WHEREAS the Legislature of the State of Texas has in Article 8280-13, V.T.C.S., as amended, delegated the responsibility to local governmental units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses; and WHEREAS, flood hazard areas of the City of La Porte are subject to periodic inundation which results in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, and extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare; and • • #FV97-001 Page 2 of 8 1/16/97 WHEREAS, these flood losses are created by the cumulative effect of obstructions in flood plains which cause an increase in flood heights and velocities, and by the occupancy of flood hazard areas by uses vulnerable to floods and hazardous to other lands because they are inadequately elevated, floodproofed, or otherwise protected from flood damage; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Porte deems it necessary in order to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provision designed: To protect human life and health; To minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects; To minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; To minimize prolonged business interruptions; To minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets and bridges located in flood plains; To help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of flood-prone areas in such a manner as to minimize future flood blight areas; and To ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in a flood area; and WHEREAS, in order to accomplish its purposes, the City Council of the City of La Porte deems an Ordinance necessary which uses the following methods: Restrict or prohibit uses that are dangerous to health, safety or property in times of flood, or cause excessive increase in flood heights or velocities; Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve as such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; Control the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which are involved in the accommodation of flood waters; Control filling, grading, dredging and other development which may increase flood damage; • • #FV97-001 Page 3 of 8 1/16/97 Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters of which may increase flood hazards to other lands. Analysis: The following procedures for Variance are from Ordinance 1533. The Variance Procedure was reviewed and approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Variance Procedures (1) The Planning and Zoning Commission of La Porte, as appointed and established by the City Council of La Porte, is designated the Appeal Board and shall hear and render judgement on requests for variances from the requirements of this ordinance. (2) The Appeal Board shall hear and render judgement on an appeal only when it is alleged there is an error in any requirement, decision, or determination made by the Floodplain Administrator in the enforcement or administration of this Ordinance. (3) Any person or persons aggrieved by the decision of the Appeal Board may appeal such decision in the courts of competent jurisdiction. (4) The Floodplain Administrator shall maintain a record of all actions involving an appeal and shall report variances to the Federal Emergency Management Agency upon request. (5) Variances may be issued for the reconstruction, rehabilitation or restoration of structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the State Inventory of Historic Places, without regard to the procedures set forth in the remainder of this Ordinance. (6) Variances may be issued for new construction and substantial improvements to be erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in size continuous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood level, providing the relevant factors in this Article have been fully considered. As the lot size increases beyond the one-half acre, the technical justification required for issuing the variance increases. • • #FV97-001 Page 4 of 8 1/16/97 (7) Upon consideration of the factors noted above and the intent of this Ordinance, the Appeal Board may attach such conditions to the granting of variances as it deems necessary to further the purpose and objective of this Ordinance (Article 1, Section C). (8) Variances shall not be issued within any designated floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. (9) Prerequisites for granting variances: a. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. b. Variances shall only be issued upon (i) showing a good and sufficient cause; (ii) a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii) a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or Ordinances. c. Any application to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice that the structure will be permitted to be built with the lowest floor elevation below the base flood elevation, and that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk resulting from the reduced lowest floor elevation. (10) Variances may be issued by La Porte for new construction and substantial improvements and for other development necessary for the conduct of a functionally dependent use provided that (i) the criteria outlined in Article 4, Section D(1)-(9) are met, and (ii) the structure or other development is protected by methods that minimize flood damages during the base flood and create no additional threats to public safety. Conclusion: The requirements to build in a floodway are highly technical and a No-Rise Certification must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the City to build in the Floodway. • • #FV97-001 Page 5 of 8 1/16/97 A No-Rise Certification from a registered professional engineer must be submitted and approved by the City. The certification should be obtained from the permittee and be signed and sealed by a registered professional engineer. No-Rise Certification in Regulatory Floodways Section 60.(d)(3) of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) states that a community shall "prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analysis performed in accordance with standard engineering practices that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of the base (100-year) flood discharge". Prior to issuing any building, grading or development permit involving activities in a regulatory floodway, the community must obtain a certification stating the proposed development will not impact the pre-project base flood elevations, floodway elevations or floodway widths. The engineering or "no-rise" certification must be supported by technical data. The supporting technical data should be based upon the standard step-backwater computer model utilized to develop the 100-year floodway shown on the community's effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) and the results tabulated in the Community's Flood Insurance Study (FIS). Although communities are required to review and approve the "no-rise" submittal, they may request technical assistance and review from the Texas Water Commission's Flood Management and Groundwater Programs Section. However, if this alternative is chosen, the community must review the technical submittal package and verify that all supporting data, listed in the following paragraphs, are included in the package before forwarding to FEMA. To support a "no-rise" certification for proposed developments encroaching into the regulatory floodway, a community will require that the following procedures be followed: Currently Effective Model Furnish a written request for the step-backwater computer model for the specified stream and community, identifying the limits of the requested data. A fee will be assessed for the requested data. • • f{FV97-001 Page 6 of 8 1/16/97 Duplicate Effective Model 2. Upon receipt of step-backwater computer model, the engineer should run the original step-backwater model to duplicate the data in the effective FIS. Existing Conditions Model 3. Revise the original step-backwater model to reflect site specific existing conditions by adding new cross-sections in the vicinity of the proposed development (two or more cross-sections) without the proposed development in place. Floodway limits should be manually set at the new cross-section locations by measuring from effective FIRM or FBFM. The cumulative reach lengths of the stream should also remain unchanged. The results of these analyses will indicate the 100-year floodway elevation for revised existing conditions at the proposed project site. Proposed Conditions Model 4. Modify the revised existing conditions model to reflect the proposed development at the new cross-section, while retaining the currently adopted floodway widths. The overbank roughness coefficients should remain the same unless a reasonable explanation will impact Manning's "n" values should be included with the supporting data. The results of this floodway run will indicate the 100-year floodway elevations for proposed conditions at the project site. The results must indicate NO impact on the 100-year flood elevations, floodway elevations or floodway widths shown in the Duplicate Effective Model or in the Existing Conditions Model. The original FIS model, the duplicate effective FIS model, the revised existing conditions model, and the proposed conditions model should all produce the exact same results. The "no-rise" supporting data and copy of engineering certification must be submitted to and reviewed by the appropriate community official prior to issuing a permit. • • #FV97-001 Page 7 of 8 1/16/97 The "no-rise" supporting data should include, but may not be limited to: a. Duplicate of the original FIS step-backwater model printout or floppy disk. b. Revised existing conditions step-backwater model. c. Proposed conditions step-backwater model. d. FIRM and topographic map, showing floodplain and floodway, the additional cross-sections, the site location with the proposed topographic modification superimposed onto the maps, and a photocopy of the effective FIRM or FBFM showing the current regulatory floodway. e. Documentation clearly stating the analysis procedures. All modifications made to the original FIS model to represent revised existing conditions, as well as those made to the revised existing conditions model to represent proposed conditions should be well documented and submitted with all supporting data. f. Copy of the effective Floodway Data table copied from the FIS report. g. Statement defining source of additional cross-section topographic data and supporting information. h. Cross-sections plots, of the added cross-sections, for revised existing and proposed conditions. i. Certified planimetric (boundary survey) information indicating the location of structures on the property. j. Copy of the microfiche, or other applicable source, from which input for the original FIS-HEC2 model was taken. k. Floppy disk with all input files. 1. Printout of output files from EDIT runs for all three floodway models. • • #FV97-001 Page 8 of 8 1/16/97 The engineering "no-rise" certification and supporting technical data must stipulate NO impact on the 100-year flood elevations, floodway elevations or floodway widths at the new cross-sections and at all existing cross-sections anywhere in the model. Therefore, the revised computer model should be run for a sufficient distance (usually one mile depending on hydraulic slope of the stream) upstream and downstream of the development site to insure a proper "no-rise" certification. FEMA requires completion of the appropriate information on new forms entitled, "Revisions to National Flood Insurance Program Maps, Application/Certification Forms and Instructions for Conditional Letters of Map Revision, Letters of Map Revision, and Physical Map Revisions. " Staff recommends denying the applicant's request until the documentation outlined in Flood Damage Preventation Ordinance #1533 has been satisfied and said documentation is provided to the City for Staff review. Staff has contacted a representative of FEMA that was contacted by the applicant. The representative stated that we were not allowed to build in a floodway. He also stated that we could be fined $50 annually per flood insured property. He stated that there are approximately 2,000 properties in La Porte that carry flood insurance. The estimted cost of probation in the program would be approximately $100,000 annually. A second violation may mean suspension from the program. EX~IIBIT • • NATIONAL F1000 INSURANCE PR06RAM F~~ FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS AND INCORPORATED A,~ZF,AS PANE1945 OF 1135 (SEE MAP INDIX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED) ' NARRIS couNTY. uwNCOaPOaATEfl AaEAs lA POR1E. QTY OF MORGANS POINT. CfTY OF PASADENA. QTY Of NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX MAP NUMBEI: 4820100945 J MAP REYISEO: NOVEMBER 6,1996 Federal Emergencq Management .agency ,ORPORATE L1N11 i S I ~, i i NCHTH ' CITY OF LA PORTED ~~ 485487, yi !'~ City of La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing January 16, 1997 Any person wishing to speak in FA,~V~OR~of any item being considered by this Commission, please indicate below by: A. Printed Name B. Signature C. Item In Favor Of ~ 1. A. ~ ~~ C f ~I~~/l.~ii/~RG ~7 B. rt2. A c _ ~~c, ~3;c~s~~ B. ~` ~L(v ~G 3. A B. X4. A. ~ c.J ~ S L h G r ~ ~ B. ~` r' ~Y ~ '~ 5. A. ~ B. ~'`6. A. J a.,yY~ ~ ~ NS,`~, I ~ B. 8. A. B. 9. A. B. 10 . A. B. 11 . A. B. 12 . A. B. 13. A. B. C. ~. C. C. C. c. c. C. C. C. C. C. C. City of La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing • January 16, 1997 Any person wishing to speak inP,~OSI _ 11f of any item being considered by this Commission, please indicate below by: --- -~ A. Printed Name B. Sig nature C. Item Being Opposed 1. A. B. C. 2. A. B. C. 3. A. B. C, 4. A. B. C. 5. A. B. C. 6. A. B. C. 7. A. B. C. 8. A. B. C. 9. A. B. C. 10. A. B. C. 11. A. B. C. 12. A. B. C. 13. A. B. C.