Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-20-1997 Regular Meeting of the La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission• i PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20,1997 Members Present: Chairman Betty Waters, Commission Members Eugene Edmonds, Dottie Kaminski, Chuck Engelken, Howard Ebow, Melton Wolters, Jim Zoller Members Absent: None City Staff Present: Director of Planning Guy Rankin, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee (Audience: City Manager Robert Herrera, Assistant City Manager John Joerns) I. CALL TO ORDER. Meeting was called to order by Chairman Waters at 6:00 PM. II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 16,1997, PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING. A motion was made by Howard Ebow to approve the Minutes of January 16, 1997. The motion was seconded by Chuck Engelken. All were in favor and the motion passed with Dottie Kaminski abstaining. III. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE TO NEWLY APPPOINTED MEMBER, JAMES ZOLLER. The Assistant City Attorney administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Zoller. N. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ZONE CHANGE REQUEST #R97-001, WHICH HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1701 S. BROADWAY (OLD HIGHWAY 146). THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A ZONE CHANGE FROM HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (N.C.). Chairman Waters opened the Public Hearing at 6:04 PM. Mr. Rankin presented staff's report for #R97-001. He reported the property owner/applicant, Ben Ritchie, requested a zone change for the property located at 1701 S. Broadway (Old Highway 146). l~Ir. Rankin noted that in Mr. Ritchie's initial application with the City, he requested a zone change from High Density Residential (R-3) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC). Since that time, the applicant has decided he would like the property zoned General Commercial (GC) instead of NC. Mr. Rankin reported there are currently three buildings on the property, a beauty shop and two metal buildings. The following is a brief history of the property's zoning. October 1977 Zoning IV1ap -Property zoned "Commercial" • • Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of February 20,1997 Page 2 of 9 October 1981 Zoning Map -Property zoned "District C Apartment & Commercial Use" January 1987 Zoning Map - "High Density Residential - R-3" September 1989 Zoning Map - "High Density Residential - R-3" Mr. Rankin noted there were several questions the owner submitted with his application. Staffls responses to those questions are as follows: "What can I do to stop the City from condemning all three buildings located on my property at 1701 South Broadway, La Porte?" Answer: The City of La Porte has not condemned any of the buildings located at 1701 South Broadway. A condemnation could only occur if the buildings were endangering the public health, safety, or welfare of the general public. The applicant can continue to operate his business and even sell his property to someone to continue the same type of operation. The only issue that would need to be addressed in the future is the 90 day abandonment section of the Zoning Ordinance. "What can be done to have the zoning changed to Neighborhood Commercial?" Answer: The City of La Porte has accepted an application from Mr. Ritchie to hold a Public Hearing for a zone change. "Why was the zoning changed without the City notifying the business owner of this change?" Answer: The City of La Porte did notify the Citizens of La Porte during its comprehensive planning process. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance was developed over three plus years from 1983 to 1987. The City of La Porte held many public meetings during 1984 to 1987 in determining zoning districts. A massive public campaign with media coverage, neighborhood meetings, and business committees were held to develop a Comprehensive Plan for the future of La Porte. Why was the zone change made on only a few businesses?" Why not all of Broadway (Old 146)? Answer: The Zoning Map for the entire City of La Porte was revised with an exhaustive and thorough review of future growth and development. All of Broadway (Old Hwy 146) as well as the rest of the City was analyzed and assessed carefully as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan process. • • Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of Febmary 20,1997 Page 3 of 9 "What authority does the members of the Old 146 Committee have that determines who can own and operate a business that has been established for more than 20 years. Does the Committee members work for a business?" Answer: The Old Hwy 146 Committee does not have any authority over zoning regulations or who can own and operate a business. Mr. Rankin concluded staff's report by recommending to the Commission, denial of #R97-001. A. PROPONENTS Albert E. Pennison, Jr., addressed the Commission. Mr. Pennison owns the property adjacent to Mr. Ritchie. He recently learned that his property is also zoned R-3 but would like it to be zoned General Commercial. Ben Ritchie, applicant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Ritchie does not understand why his property is zoned R-3. He claims he will never be able sell his property for what he paid. The property was zoned Commercial prior to him buying it. Once he purchased the property, his wife used one of the buildings for a beauty salon and he used one of the buildings as a hobby shop. Mr. Ritchie had reviewed material relating to the meetings that were held regarding the various zone changes. He noted that the information provided in the public notifications could not easily be understood. He does not understand why the City would change the zoning of his property to a zone that would devaluate its worth. In closing, Mr. Ritchie told the Commission that the City has created a hardship for him. Thelma Ritchie, owner of the beauty salon, addressed the Commission. Ms. Ritchie believes the current zoning has created a hardship for them. Imogene Pennison, addressed the Commission. lV1s. Pennison is an adjacent property owner. She has had requests to rent some of her vacant land, but with the current zoning she will be unable to. She also noted that she never received prior zone change notices. Ms. Pennison requested the zoning be changed. B. OPPONENTS Rand Valentin, on behalf of the Old 146 Committee, addressed the Commission. Mr. Valentin told the Commission that this • • Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of Febmary 2A, 1997 Page 4 of 9 property has held its current zoning for over 10 years. While he does not claim to be an appraiser, Mr. Valentin noted that residential property in the immediate area and across the street is selling from X33,000 to $56,000 per lot. It is his belief that the property in question has more worth as residential than commercial. The expansion of the Bayport Channel, which converted Old Hwy. 146 to a dead end street named South Broadway, is no longer a thoroughfare. It is not a good climate for a commercial businesses. Over 20 businesses have gone out of business. Vacancies currently exist in three NC zones so it is difficult to understand the need for creating additional NC zones. And finally, Mr. Valentin noted that rezoning such a small area would constitute spot zoning. Mr. Valentin requested the property's zoning remain residential. V. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Waters closed the Public Hearing at 6:32 PM. Mr. Rankin reminded the applicant that he could continue to run his business as usual without a rezoning, and additionally, if he wanted to sell, the business use (or a like use) would be allowed for the new owner. VI. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ZONE CHANGE REQUEST #R97-001. A motion was made by Melton Wolters to deny Zone Change Request #R97-001. The motion was seconded by Howard Ebow. All were in favor and the motion passed. (Note: Even though the applicant visited with staff prior to the meeting to request the zone change be to General Commercial rather than Neighborhood Commercial, the original request was for Neighborhood Commercial. This is how it was noticed to the public and appeared on the agenda for consideration by the Commission. VII. PRESENTATION BY DEVELOPER FOR PROPOSED TEXAS IMPORT/EXPORT INDUSTRIAL PARE. Mr. Rankin stated that approximately 3-4 months ago, City staff was contacted by Developers expressing an interest in building a large development of over 250 acres within the city limits. IVfr. Rankin noted that at this early stage, staff neither approves nor disapproves of the development. He introduced the first speaker for the group as Doyle Toups with the Grubb & Ellis Company. Mr. Toups provided the following information: • • Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of February 2A, 1997 Page 5 of 9 Approximately 4-6 months ago, Grubb & Ellis was hired by Stuart Haynsworth, (one of the owners of the property in question) to sell the property. The initial development scenario that was devised included, among other things, some industrial bulk distribution warehouses, office warehouses, retail and residential development. Since that time, they have successfully contracted with several developers for the type of development they felt would work here. With the development being located in a P.U.D. zone, they were concerned with restrictions that could be imposed regarding future development of the property. There is a tremendous need for industrial properties in this area. They are in the position to market this property to developers that will build buildings to serve various industries that are located on the north side of SH 225 as well as the Bayport Industrial District. Grubb & Ellis has contracted with a Canadian group that has taken approximately 40 acres (a strip 2,000 LF x 670 LF along SH 146). In addition, there is a major institutional fund that may account for up to 200 acres of the property for development of industrial buildings. Mr. Toups added that the type of buildings that have been identified for this development are Grade A product; meaning, very expensive, architecturally pleasing, and does not include metal buildings. A local company, Center Land Company, has designed an intermodal facility and contracted for the land. It is necessary for the group to obtain zoning for bulk distribution, development of warehouses, office warehouses, service and retail centers. Chairman Waters asked Mr. Toups what dollar amount is placed on the development. His answer was the overall worth after development would be in excess of one hundred million dollars. Mr. Toups introduced Dean Truitt, an Officer with Center Land Company, that specializes in industrial, railroad, utility corridor type properties. Their primary focus deals with the use of comdors. There is substantial need for additional rail and trucking infrastructure for the ability to efficiently move product in and out of the Bayport Industrial District. Mr. Toups described intermodal as moving from one form of transportation to another. They are not talking about a container facility. They are talking about a facility that deals with the plastics and chemicals being produced in the Bayport Industrial District. Center Land Company is concerned with the transportation component of the overall development; the ability to effectively get product in and out of production facilities and into distribution. Even though Center Land is serving as developer and planner for the project, they have entered into a joint agreement with the Pensley Railroad Company, having considerable experience in operating storage facilities and interrelating with Union Pacific Railroad and other national carriers. • Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of February 20,1997 Page 6 of 9 There are critical design issues such as streets, utilities, stormwater, stonnwater retention, stormwater monitoring and treatment, and design for traffic flow in terms of rail and trucking. There have been some discussions with City staff regarding these issues. In regards to negataive impacts created by the development such as noise and. increased traffic, there have been recent studies of rail operations and noise levels. A study was performed by Turner Collie & Braden for noise abatement. After reviewing this study, they believe that it is possible to put in noise abatement facilities that will minimize the impact. Regarding traffic, a great deal of design and monitoring the quantity of additional traffic will be required. Concern has been expressed about the impact of traffic on the north end of the development. It appears that most of the traffic needs to go south out to SH 146. They are prepared to upgrade and design Powell Road to meet requirements. Chairman Waters asked for an estimate of how many railcars will come in and out of the development daily and how will they facilitate getting the cars from the plants into the facility. Chuck Lagen, with Pensley Railroad, responded that in the beginning, the operation would be small with only a few tracks serving approximately 20-50 railcars daily. These would be cars that you currently see sitting on adjacent tracks on the west side of the site. Mr. Truitt added that projections for total storage capacity is up to 1,500 cars (not all at once). This facility will provide the ability to create an orderly flow of traffic in and out of the Bayport Industrial District. Chairman Waters asked about additional rail traffic crossing Fairmont Parkway. Mr. Truitt explained that increase or decrease of rail traffic will be determined by the demand of the plants. Mr. Lagen explained that the cars that are currently in Bayport, as they come into the facility, will be switched at the south end. Cars will be switched in the facility for Union Pacific to pick up and take out of town. Jim Zoller asked about railcars that contain corrosive, toxic chemicals. Will equipment and expertise be available to handle an unfortunate incident? Dean Truitt explained there have not been decisions made concerning the handling of hazardous material at the facility. There have been discussions with City staff about the facility not being a hazardous material facility. Mr. Lagen told the Commission he had been involved with the railroad industry for 30 years. His company currently handles hazardous material and prior to that he worked for a company that did also. That company had a very proactive hazardous • • Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of February ZA,1997 Page 7 of 9 material response plan in place. He would anticipate the same type of program here. There will also be mechanical personnel on staff to repair the cars. Howard Ebow asked if the projected 1,800 jobs were permanent. Mr. Truitt said that number related to the total project. The rail component of the development would account for approximately 200 permanent jobs after construction. Chuck Engelken asked about the salary range of the 200 jobs. Mr. Lagen answered that they offer a very competitive wage. In addition, they offer a very positive benefit package. Melton Wolters asked about storm drainage. Mr. Truitt stated there would be stormwater detention that would be monitored and treated on site if necessary. Mr. Wolters noted that ship channel industries may currently be staging their cars on the north side of Fairmont Parkway, but when they learn there is a facility on the south side of Fairmont Parkway, they may want to stage them there. Mr. Truitt explained that current plans and prospective clients for the facility are all clients that exist in Bayport today. They will not be taking storage from facilities that are located in other spots. Mr. Lagen said that interest from the Bayport Industrial District has more than committed for available space at this facility. The attractiveness of the facility for plants is that they can order a car today and receive it tomorrow. Pensley is a shortline rail company unlike the large carriers. Chairman Waters asked where Pensley's existing facilities are located. Mr. Lagen said there was one in Hot Springs, Arkansas, which is where his headquarters are located; three railroads in Florida, one in South Carolina, and one in Massachusetts. The company has been in existence since 1938. They also have three distribution centers; one in Massachusetts, one in Florida, and one in Arkansas. Howard Ebow was concerned with increased rail traffic crossing Fairmont Pkwy. if ship channel industries on the north side of Fairmont utilize the facility. Mr. Lagen's response was drat his company was looking at an additional 2 to 3 locations in the greater Houston area to meet the present demand. In regards to possible rail crossing improvements on Fairmont Pkwy., Mr. Lagen said his company would be more than willing to work with the City to try and obtain funding from Intermodal Service Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Mr. Rankin told the Commission that what was said by the group tonight is not what was represented to him over the past 3 to 4 months. For example, he was told there would not be any switching, only storage; there would be no hazardous chemicals, only plastics; this would be an import/export park, not a rail storage switching facility. • • Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of Febmary ZA,1997 Page 8 of 9 Mr. Truitt stated there were discussions with Mr. Rankin about not including hazardous materials at this site. Mr. Truitt said his group represented that their operation would not be involved in switching the traffic in Bayport. The term switching is being used to describe moving the cars around in the yard to get them ready to come and go. Trains will be made for the larger carriers to transport, but they will not be operating trains out of the facility. Chairman Waters asked if development of the park would be gradual or if it would be built in its entirety. Mr. Toups replied it was being marketed internationally as a Texas Export/Import Industrial Park. It is expected that the rail use of the property will increase the demand for companies such as Excel, Interpak Terminals, and A & R Transport. . During discussions about the definition of intermodal, Mr. Lagen wanted it to be clear that there is no intent to store containers at this facility. In regards to appearance, Mr. Toups made the statement that this would be a first class facility. There would be landscaping and a berm between SH 146 and the properties. Mr. Toups added they have acquired approximately 45 additional acres and are marketing a 300 acre development. Mr. Rankin asked if there was a similar industrial park in the Houston area. Mr. Toups answered Kempwood Industrial Park in northwest Houston near Bingle and the Hempstead Hwy. and Century Business Plaza near I-45 and Rankin Rd. Mr. Herrera asked what the estimated count will be for vehicular traffic entering and exciting the facility. Mr. Toups stated he did not know what the figure would be, however, he was sure the increase would be dramatic. Mr. Herrera asked if a truck with a boxcar or container used to move product was considered to be intermodal. Mr. Toups said it was and there would definitely be that type of vehicular traffic in and out of this facility. Mr. Herrera asked if the entrance route they were proposing was for traffic entering town from SH 225 to SH 146 to exit Fairmont Parkway and take Powell Rd. into the facility. Mr. Toups said that if it were to happen today that would have to be the route, however, subsequently, another route would be developed. Mr. Herrera was concerned about the increase in railcars crossing Fairmont Pkwy. Mr. Lagen answered that if assumed that the plants in the Bayport Industrial District continue shipping their present volume, then there would not be an increase in rail traffic crossing Fairmont Pkwy. However, if industries north of Fairmont began shipping through them then there would be an increase. He noted that there appears to be more than enough interest in the facility from Bayport without having to go outside for other customers. • • Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of Febmary 2A, 1997 Page 9 of 9 Mr. Herrera asked Mr. Lagen if they would be willing to assist the City in obtaining grant funding (if available) from the ISTEA program. Mr. Lagen replied they would be more than willing to help in any way they could. Mr. Herrera asked what the trade percentages would be for the estimated 200 jobs proposed for the railyard. Mr. Lagen estimated 5-10% support staff with the balance being train, mechanical, and other personnel. There will be an onsite managerial staff. Rand Valentin voiced his concern about an increase in railcars at crossings. Mr. Toups stated that the agreement that has been structured for the sale of the property to Center Land contains provisions for three rail lines to be taken from their property to the other areas of the overall development. Chairman Waters expressed her opposition to a rail spur being constructed to cross Powell Rd. She added that further correspondence with the City should be written and directed to Mr. Rankin. VIII. STAFF REPORTS There were none. IX. ADJOURN Chairman Waters declared the meeting duly adjourned at 8:13 PM. Respectfully submitted, Peggy Le , Secretary Planning and Zoning Commission Approved on this the 20`~ day of l~farch, 1997. ~. Betty T.~ Uaters Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission • • SPENCER LAKE SUBDIVISION GENERAL PLAN Staff Report Spencer Lake Subdivision March 20, 1997 General Plan Spencer Lake is a proposed 112 lot residential subdivision which will be located on the north side of Spencer Highway in approximately the 11,400-11,500 block. The subdivision will be comprised of approximately 33.16 acres. Under the terms of Development Ordinance 1444, this project, based on acreage, is classified as a major subdivision. The proposed major subdivision will be developed in phases. As required by the Development Ordinance, the developer has submitted a General Plan of the entire subdivision. Once the general plan has been approved, it will be followed by sepazate preliminary and final plat submittal for each of the two (2) subdivision sections. Commission approval of the each section's final plat and the City's approval of proposed improvements would result in issuance of a Development Authorization by the City. This permits the developer to begin construction of subdivision improvements. Staff's review involved Zoning, Comprehensive Plan and Development Ordinance issues. The property is zoned High Density Residential (R-3) which is appropriate for a residential subdivision. The General Plan proposes approximately 4 dwelling units per acre. The northern half of the property conforms with the Comprehensive Plan guidelines of 2-8 dwelling units per acre. But the southern half of the property shows a density of 9-14 dwelling units per acre and some commercial use. The proposed subdivision will be located in Pazk Zone 5. No pazk currently exists in this zone; however, a proposed park and trails are referenced. The City's Development Ordinance prohibits the dedication of pazkland less than one acre in size; therefore, money in lieu of parkland would be required at or prior to the time of Final Plat approval. Based on the proposed 112 lots, the in lieu payment would be at a cost of $175.00 per lot or $19,600.00. In accordance with this regulation, the submitted General Plan does not designate any parkland. Other elements of the Comprehensive Plan that were considered during this phase of review include the following: • Land Use Plan • Utilities Plan • Thoroughfare Plan • Safety Plan • Parks/Conservation Plan The land use plan shows this proposed subdivision to be located in an area that has been designated for mid to high density residential use. However, as referenced above, the land use plan envisions the development of the acreage to include densities of 2-8 & 9-14 dwelling units/acre, as well as some commercial use. Planning & Zoning (3/20/9'n • • Spencer Lake General Plan Page 2 of 2 Using Appendix "C" of the Development Ordinance as a guide, Staff has reviewed the Spencer Lake General Plan and found it complies with many of the requirements of the development ordinance. A copy of the General Plan Checklist follows this report. A copy of the Spencer Lake General Plan is also included. (See Exhibit A) Development Ordinance Section 4.01 requires that the Commission, subsequent to review of a General Plan, take one of the following actions. 1. A.~move the General Plan as filed; 2. Conditionally Approve the General Plan as filed, provided the reasons for such conditional approval are stated in writing and a copy of the statement is signed by the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission; 3. Disapprove the General Plan as filed, provided the reasons for such disapproval are stated in writing and a copy of the statement is signed by the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. As noted, the Spencer Lake General Plan has been found to comply with many of the City regulations. Some issues remain; therefore, staff recommends that the General Plan be "Disapproved" at this time. Disapproval by the Commission requires the submission of a new General Plan and additional documentation as specified by the Commission. As part of the disapproval, the Commission should require the developer's compliance with the items shown below ~Qr to the submission of a new General Plan. The following items should be addressed: 1) See comments on attached General Plan Checklist. 2) Restricted Reserve "A" is proposed as a fishing pond for the subdivision. It is proposed to be a combination fishing pond and on-site detention area. Staff has not finished researching the 18-20 foot hole/fishing pond. City Code of Ordinances and State Law may contain additional requirements for this type of development. The Commission should address the fencing issue for this area. The pond will have sloped sides and a depth of approximately 18-20 feet. Several ordinances must be researched before approval will be given to dig an 18- 20 foot hole within the city limits. 3) Maximum allowed block length on a local street is 1,400 feet. The street, Spencer Lake West, exceeds the maximum length for traffic safety standards. 4) Show proposed stormwater outfall ("D" Street, Spencer). • • GENERAL PLAN CHECKLLST Development Name: Type of Development: Location: Date of Commission Review: Spencer Lake Residential Subdivision 11400 to 11500 Blk. Spencer Highway March 20. 1997 A. Graphic Contents 1. ~ Name of Development: 2. Tyke of Development: 3. Description of Land: 4. Phases: 5. Name of Developer: 6. Name of Surve~r: Name of En ig Weer: 7. Filing Date: 8. Scale: 9. North Arrow: 10. Key Map: 11. Perimeter Boundaries: 12. Adjacent Properties: 13. Physical Features: (Detention) 14. Contour Lines: 15. Building Lines: Properly noted. Incomplete '' Properly noted. Properly noted. Correct spelling. Not shown. Not shown. Properly noted. Properly noted. Not shown. Properly noted. Properly noted. Shown names of adjacent ~ro~erty owners. Properly noted. Properly noted. Incomplete "- • General Plan Checklist Contd. Page 2 of 2 16. Subdivisions: 17. Condominiums: 18. Reserves: 19. Unsubdivided Developments: 20. Stree 21. Street Names: 22. Utility Easements: 23. Existing Public Utilities: 24. Flood Hazard Area: 25. Schematic Util~ Layout: (If Applicable) • Properly noted. N/A Incomplete '3 N/A Properly noted. Properly noted. Incomplete '4 Not shown. Properly noted. N/A until Preliminary Plat. B. Documentation 1. La Porte Development Checklist: Not furnished to the City. 2. Location or Vicinity Map: Shown on General Plan. Comments: '1 Identify as residential subdivision. "- Side building lines shall be a minimum of 10' in width. '3 Add sq. footage and proposed use for Restricted. Reserve "A" shown. '4 Storm sewer easements shall be a minimum of 20' in width. Identifx easement size/use - northwest corner of subdivision. Reviewed By: Date: 3/6/97 • • EXHIBITS ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~r•;•;y~ :• ":-r: _:r~; tiORTH ~ STP.EET N 88'51'08 ~~w 915.72. -[IS"'.:G '.. _.. i°vC; ~P' JE?~ -_._ i a ~~ '~ ?S f ' ', ° e - c i~ ~i _. it ~ ~~~ ~~.'~_~- ~ '___y-. _ ~; ~ _ _- J ~i -._ i / _ ~.- ~ ~ ~~1. ~ ~ -- - ti ~ ~ ~' `: ; T~ ~ IU' ! _ ~ , , ~ ~ .~.; - _ , _. ' ,I i i ~ _ i.- i- ___ . ~- ~ ~- s ---r, _ • 5 ~ _--- _. _., - - - _ __ _ , _ _I ____- f I __ ._ __ _~~ - Y -- _.. ___. - .__ ___ a ' ~~~ ~_ ~ ~ '- ~ ~ ' ~~ < ~ '" __. ---r ~ '.~ _ I .. :.1 --t-_-' _ - e -- r -- ~ ~ z - ..__. - ~~ ~ 6^ -' n ea5s•ze° w nn2.sr 'd~lti STP.EET SPE~CEF. HIGHxd}~ __ ---- ~. ~~p.. ut Lors RECENED INSPECTIONS''. ~_ rE\ERaI. PL_~~ FOI~~ ~~?~F~C'ER L.~f~E ~'i_~BDI~~ISIU~ 1F.1~ELnPE;R - B.D.RE~i.IT ,~ 33.1f~ ACRE C.~1LLE1) a;'.98D1 .Si . TF.. F[LE ~o. G~~61',3G ti '~:L1f ; .DE \o. 1::;)-82-0-11:, i).C.l.ll.(.; ~~ Ui' I a NORTF.. HaP,R[S ('(}I'\Tl. 'fE\_`,~ 1t~,P,('H 1 .ICI ~l~ CO\SLLT1vG E\GI\EEP.e. I\C. r , .~.. - . .~ . '116' ~ • • SUMMER WINDS SUBDIVISION GENERAL PLAN • • Staff Report Summer Winds Subdivision March 20, 1997 General Plan Summer Winds is a proposed 126 lot residential subdivision which will be located on the west side of Underwood Road in approximately the 3700 block. The subdivision will be comprised of approximately 35.6261 acres. Under the terms of Development Ordinance 1444, this project, based on acreage, is classified as a major subdivision. The proposed major subdivision will be developed in phases. As required by the Development Ordinance, the developer has submitted a General Plan of the entire subdivision. Once the general plan has been approved, it will be followed by separate preliminary and final plat submittal for each of the two (2) subdivision sections. Commission approval of the each section's final plat and the City's approval of proposed improvements would result in issuance of a Development Authorization by the City. This permits the developer to begin construction of subdivision improvements. Staff s review involved Zoning, Comprehensive Plan and Development Ordinance issues. The property is zoned Low Density Residential (R-1) which is appropriate for a residential subdivision. The General Plan proposes approximately 4 dwelling units per acre which conforms with the Comprehensive Plan guidelines of 2-8 dwelling units per acre. The proposed subdivision will be located in Park Zone 1. One park currently exists in this zone; however, a proposed park and trails are also referenced. The City's Development Ordinance prohibits the dedication of parkland less than one acre in size; therefore, money in lieu of parkland would be required at or prior to the time of Final Plat approval. Based on the proposed 126 lots, the in lieu payment would be at a cost of $175.00 per lot or $22,050.00. In accordance with this regulation, the General Plan does not designate any parkland. Other elements of the Comprehensive Plan that were considered during this phase of review include the following: • Land Use Plan • Utilities Plan • Thoroughfare Plan • Safety Plan • Parks/Conservation Plan The land use plan shows this proposed subdivision to be located in an area that has been designated for public use. However, as referenced above, the comprehensive plan addresses the development of the acreage to include densities of 2-8 dwelling units/acre. • • Planning & Zoning (3/20/9'n Summer Winds General Plan Page 2 of 3 Using Appendix "C" of the Development Ordinance as a guide, Staff has reviewed the Summer Winds General Plan and found it complies with the requirements contained in the ordinance. A copy of the General Plan Checklist follows this report. A copy of the Summer Winds General Plan is also included. (See Exhibit A) Development Ordinance Section 4.01 requires that the Commission, subsequent to review of a General Plan, take one of the following actions. 1. rov the General Plan as filed; 2. Conditionally. Approve the General Plan as filed, provided the reasons for such conditional approval are stated in writing and a copy of the statement is signed by the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission; 3. Disapprove the General Plan as filed, provided the reasons for such disapproval are stated in writing and a copy of the statement is signed by the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. As noted, the Summer Winds General Plan has been found to comply with many of the development ordinance regulations; however, since many items remain unaddressed, staff feels the approval of the General Plan at this time is premature. Therefore, staff recommends that the General Plan be "Conditionally Approved" at this time. Conditional approval by the Commission requires the submission of an amended General Plan and additional documentation as specified by the Commission. As part of the approval, the Commission should require the developer's compliance with the items shown below prior to the submission of an amended General Plan. The submission of an amended General Plan and documentation may be filed concurrently with the next Preliminary Plat. The reasons for conditional approval are stated below and shown on the attached checklist. Staff recommends conditional approval subject to the following items being addressed: 1) The developer needs to provide the City with an authorization letter from the two property owners which authorizes him to act on their behalf. 2) Water and sewer are not currently available. The developer will need to negotiate with the City on two (2) offsite utility extension agreements. The water extension would be for approximately 1,500 feet and the sewer extension would be approximately 2,000 feet. A review of the area's existing and proposed utility use will determine if the City wishes to participate in an oversizing. 3) Desert Run Drive, in Phase I, will be a dead-end street. Dead-end streets can be no longer than 600 feet. 4) Future access to Caniff Road is a good idea, but the road is not currently developed for traffic. Development will need to be discussed. The Development Ordinance requires the perimeter roads be constructed at the time the subdivision is developed. Planning & zoning (3/20/9'n • • Summer Winds General Plan Page 3 0[ 3 5) The Underwood drainage system is designed to receive runoff from 150 feet off the roadway. Bringing additional areas to the Underwood system might create a localized drainage problem. Approval of on-site detention will be made by Harris County and the City. 6) There is a Reserve located in Section 1 that has no access. Reserve must be identified and show ownership. 7) Utility layout and ownership of adjacent properties must be shown. • • GENERAL PLAN CHECKLIST Development Name: Type of Development: Location: Date of Commission Review: Summer Winds Residential Subdivision 3700 Blk. Underwood Road March 20. 1997 A. Graphic Contents 1. Name of Development: 2. Twe of Development: 3. Description of Land: 4. Phases: 5. Name of Developer: 6. Name of Survexor: Name of En ig Weer: 7. Filing Date: 8. Scale: 9. North Arrow: 10. Key Man: 11. Perimeter Boundaries: 12. Adjacent Properties: 13. Physical Features: (Detention) 14. Contour Lines: 15. Building Lines: Properly noted. Incomplete '' Incomplete '~ Properly noted. Properly noted. Not shown. Not shown. Properly noted. Properly noted. Properly noted. Properly noted. Properly noted. Incomplete .3 Outfall ditch not shown. Not shown. Not shown. • General Plan Checklist Contd. Page 2 of 2 16. Subdivisions: 17. Condominiums: 18. Reserves: 19. Unsubdivided Developments: 20. tree 21. Street Names: 22. Utilit~Easements: 23. Existing Public Utilities: 24. Flood Hazard Area: 25. Schematic Utility Layout: (If Applicable) B. Documentation 1. 2. Comments: u Properly noted. N/A Incomplete '4 N/A Properly noted. Properly noted. Not shown. Incomplete 'S Properly noted. N/A until Preliminary Plat. La Porte Development Checklist: Not furnished to the Citv. Location or Vicinity Map: Shown on General Plan. '1 Identify as residential subdivision. _'2 Tract owners should be identified: two owners shown for five tracts making up proposed subdivision. Legal description shown does not match tax roll description. Additional __ information required. '3 Name and locations of adjacent acreage tracts. etc. are not shown to the north. west. and south. '4 No access/easement is provided for ingress/egress, maintenance. etc. Add sq. footage. r~oposed usage and identify Reserve "A" as "Restricted or Unrestricted". `S Storm drainage outfall not shown. Water and sewer is not available: requires extension. Reviewed By: Date: 3/6/97 • • EXHIBITS m ^r ;GC ~.~T t719.~5 BE,Cx ~t ;n -.. a ,, ' ~____ -----'--- - . .------- -- -"-' f6 _ r o,y uBCE _ - ~. .~ ,9f, -... x'. fma.u' ,.. , - ~ -- { v '' I 'a __ :p I. .9 -3 .0 x; ._ 1 1~ Fy :a . 5 ____ _I ,v ~ ~ - ~ r ~ ~ - ~ l~ - ti ~ - i i. 1' - ~ ; _ _. __ _ _. _ i ~ i ~- ___._.~ -- -- - - - .~ c __-..__ ._ Y_- / ~ F' - ': . ~ ---- _ t, ~ ~ _ ~. T _ 4: _ .- ~ _. n _ i ._ ___._ ' f _ ~ f .aY~F: .(; ~ .. ~ ,.E v Y CNE z a cu .- fiY .E. _. _ .,aF.. ~tE`_' c~rE\Er' ~_L PL:~\ ~r: ~- ~I~IEP v1"I~ ``~~ yya.:: +,l.~ll~il~ 3;97 ~ ? i'0'•~tLPIS!: ES ,I\FEf:S. I~C- ~9CHiBl3' A LOC:ITIO` ItaP _ V1'S II~Y 71.>P 573-.41 • • DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS Staff Report Driveway Standards March 20, 1997 The City's driveway standazds are contained in Zoning Ordinance #1501, Sect. 10-605. These standards include regulations regazding: • materials • size • location In staff's opinion, the standards were reasonable and workable when adopted. However, citizen concerns have created the need for some additional clazification. An issue in which there does appeaz to be a need for more stringent regulation is that of acceptable pazking and driveway dust-free materials. Presently, the Zoning Ordinance identifies the materials suitable to control dust and drainage as: concrete, asphalt, recycled asphalt, or other materials if approved by the City Engineer. The current wording has resulted in field situations for staff. The pazking and driveway azea is normally installed near the end of a construction job. Construction costs always run over initial estimates which in turn results in limited funds for the pazking and driveway areas. The recycled asphalt and other materials can create undesirable surfaces unless an a proper base is provided, adequate amount of surface material is used and the proper installation equipment is used. Recently materials the owner feels is acceptable as "dust-free" has not been acceptable to the City. The City's policy is to hold utilities to the new structure until an acceptable dust-free surface has been provided. Staff finds that owners of the house tend to move in as soon as utilities allow. When this occurs, the City will often have to take formal action to obtain the required dust-free parking and driveways which have been required as part of the job. To avoid the need for this type of action, utilities aze held until proper surfaces are provided. A second issue that needs to be addressed deals with the portion of the driveway between the property line and the tie-in at the street. Since this part of the driveway is over the street right- of-way, some individuals want to install rock, gravel or other unacceptable materials. Individuals have asked to see a written requirement that states this portion must be dust-free as well. The City's policy has been that the right-of--way portion of the driveway must be properly developed at the same time as the remainder of the driveway. Staff feels this is considered as part of standard development. The third issue deals with large lot residential property. Many individuals who own acreage choose to place their home further back on the property. This means that the driveway they develop is often 4 to 6 times longer than driveways in other azeas of town. The cost of a long driveway can be more expensive. Possible alternatives are as follows: • Define "dust-free" as concrete or asphalt. a) Provide specifications for concrete driveways b) Provide specifications for asphalt driveways • Planning & Zoning (3/20/ Driveway Standards Page 2 of 2 • Establish requirements for standard residential lots versus large lot residential (1 acre and over). Typically 20 X 25'* or 12 X 40'plus the right-of--way are would allow the parking of two vehicles on site. The remainder of the driveway can be developed as just an all weather surface. An all weather allows for use year round and could be identified as mud free, water free, etc. Materials could include gravel, limestone, etc. N( OTE: *standard front yard setback is 25') There are other options for addressing this issue and staff would welcome input and suggestions from the Commission. The issue is, at this time, being presented to the Commission as a discussion item. The Commission may: • Choose one of the specified options and direct staff to schedule a public hearing for its consideration. • Provide additional options and move to a public hearing. • Confirm dust free philosophy. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends a dust free surface fifty feet (50') from the street on large lot residential areas. This would include the right-of--way area.