HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-20-1997 Regular Meeting of the La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission
•
PL~A-NNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINiTI'ES OF MARCH 20,1997
Members Present Chairman Betty Waters, Commission Members Eugene Edmonds,
Dottie Kaminski, Chuck Engelken, Howard Ebow, Jim Zoller
Members Absent Melton Wolters
City Staff Present Director of Plarming Guy Rankin, Chief Building Official Art Flores,
Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Planning Secretary Peggy
Lee (Audience: Assistant City Manager John Joerns)
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Waters at 6:00 PM.
II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 20,1997, REGULAR
MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING.
A motion was made by Chuck Engelken to approve the Minutes of February 20,
1997. The motion was seconded by Eugene Edmonds. All were in favor and the
motion passed.
III. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR SPENCER
LAKE SUBDIVISION.
Mr. Rankin presented staff's report. The proposed subdivision will consist of 112
lots located on the north side of Spencer Highway in the 11,400-11,500 Block. The
current zoning is R-3 (High Density Residential).
Staff reviewed the General Plan and recommended that it be disapproved based on
the following:
1. Several graphic contents of the plan should be revised
a. Identify the type of development as a residential subdivision.
b. Side building lines shall be a minimum of ten feet in width.
c. Add square footage and proposed usage for Restricted,
Reserve "A".
d. Storm sewer easements shall be a minimum of twenty feet in
width. Identify easement size/use -northwest corner of
subdivision.
e. Correct the spelling of the Developer's name.
f . Show the names of surveyor and engineer.
• •
g. Show the north arrow.
h. Show names of adjacent property owners.
i. Show existing public utilities.
2. Submit a completed La Porte Development Checklist.
3. Restricted Reserve "A" is proposed as a fishing pondlon site
detention area for the subdivision. City Code of Ordinances and
State Law may contain additional requirements for this type of
development The pond will have sloped sides and a depth of
approximately 18-20 feet. Several ordinances must be researched
prior to approval being granted to dig an 18-20 foot hole within the
city limits. The Commission should also address the fencing issue for
this area.
4. 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.
5. Show proposed stormwater outfall ("D" Street, Spencer).
The Developer, Brad Drll,, addressed the Commission. Mr. Dill commented that the
bottom portion of the large lake would serve as detention. It would maintain a
constant level of water and be stocked with fish to serve as a park area for the
subdivision. When asked why such a deep hole is proposed, Mr. Dill explained that
his dirt subcontractor has a contract to provide dirt for the improvements to SH 146.
The question was raised about liab~7ity to the City if someone were to fall in and
become injured. Mr. Armstrong noted if the City were negligent in permitting and
developing a public facrlity, there is always the possibility of the City being held
liable. He added there are excavation ordinances that must be addressed by Council
if the amenity is developed. Mr. Rankin handed out rules and regulations of the
Texas Aggregate Quarry and Pit Safety Act that is regulated by the Railroad
Commission of Texas. There has not been a decision as to who will be responsible
f or maintaining the pond
Fred Thompson, the engineer, addressed the Commission. Mr. Thompson
understood the reservations of staff and the Commission and will be meeting with
staff to resolve outstanding issues.
A motion was made by Howard Ebow to disapprove the General Plan for Spencer
Lake Subdivision. The motion was seconded by Chuck Engelken. All were in favor
and the motion passed
Mr. Rankin noted that the City will continue to work with the Developer on this
project.
•
IV. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR SUNIlVIER
WINDS SUBDIVISION.
Mr. Rankin presented staff's report. The proposed subdivision will consist of 126
lots located on the west side of Underwood Road in the 3700 Block. The current
zoning is R-1 (Low Density Residential). Staff reviewed the General Plan and
recommended that it be conditionally approved.
Eazl Wilburn, the Developer, addressed the Commission. Mr. Wli burn stated he
hoped others would participate with improvements to Caniff Road. In regards to
the Reserve, they had hoped to use it as a park site. The turn lane staff is proposing
presents a problem for him and will require further discussion.
Fred Thompson, the engineer, addressed the Commission. Mr. Thompson
understood the need for a turn lane off Underwood Road and thinks it is workable.
A motion was made by Eugene Edmonds to conditionally approve the General Plan
f or the Summer Winds Subdivision. The conditions of approval are:
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) off site utility extension
agreements. The water extension would be for approximately 1,500
feet and the sewer extension would be approximately 2,000 f eet. A
review of the azea's existing and proposed utility use wr11 determine if
the City wishes to participate in an oversizing.
3. Desert Run Drive, in Phase I, will be adead-end street. Dead-end
streets can be no longer than 600 feet.
4. Future access to Cani{f Road is a good idea, but the road is not
currently developed for traffic. Development w~l need to be
discussed. The Development Ordinance requires the perimeter roads
be constructed at the time the subdivision is developed.
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. Utiiity layout and ownership of adjacent properties must be shown.
• •
8. Several graphic contents of the plan should be revised
a. Identify the type of development as a residential subdivision.
b. Identify tract owners; two owners shown for five tracts
making up proposed subdivision. Legal description shown
does not match tax roll description. Additional information
is required
c. Show the names of surveyor and engineer.
d. Provide name and locations of adjacent tracts, etc. to the
north, west, and south.
e. Show outfall ditch.
f. Add contour lines and binding lines
g. Show access/easement to provide foringress/egress,
maintenance, etc. Add sq. footage, proposed usage and
identify Reserve "A" as "Restricted or Unrestricted".
h. Show utility easements.
i. Shaw storm drainage outfall.
9. Submit a completed La Porte Development Checklist
The motion was seconded by Hawanl Ebow. All were in favor and the motion
passed.
V. DISCUSS REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN ORDINANCE 1501,
SECTION 10-605, DP:IVEWAY STANDARDS
Art Flores explained to the Commission the difficultythe Inspection Services
Division is having with current driveway standards in Ordinance 1501, which deal
with materials, size and location. Additional clarification is needed.
Staff s recommendation was to define "dust-free" as concrete or asphalt and provide
specifications for both concrete and asphalt driveways. Also, establish requirements
for standard residential lots versus large lot residential (1 acre and over). They also
recommended a dust free surface fifty feet from the street on large lot residential
areas, including the right-of--way area.
Staff encouraged input and suggestions from the Commission. Discussion followed
John Joerns addressed the Commission. Mr. Joerns noted that at one time staff was
looking at including certain material and ' decisions into a document
called the Public Improvements Criteria Manual, that would be a companion
document to the Zoning Ordinance. He suggested placing a chapter in this manual
to deal with this situation. He will get with staff to discuss pursuing development of
the manual.
•
VI. STAFF REPORTS
Mr. Rankin informed the Commission that someone was present to give a brief
presentation about a proposed Commercial Recreation District that would include a
golf range batting cage type facility located west of Pecan Crossing Subdivision.
Glin LeBaron, a resident of La Porte, addressed the Commission. Mr. LeBaron
stated he was not prepared for a formal presentation. He will finalize some
outstanding items and return at a later date.
Mr. Rankin provided the Commission with a summary of what Mr. LeBaron is
proposing titled "The Eagle Golf Range". He also provided an update of new
commercial businesses in LaPorte.
Mr. Rankin stated that Chairman Waters suggested staff coordinate a comprehensive
review for the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Development
Ordinance, and Bayfront Master Plan. All new documents were distributed to
members.
The Commission discussed meetingtimes/dates to hold workshop meetings to
perform these reviews. It was decided that workshop meetings would be held from
5:30-7:00 PM on the same day as the regular meetings. Regular meetings will now
begin at 7:00 PM instead of 6:00 PM.
vII. ADfovRly
Chairman Waters declared the meeting duly adjourned at 7:34 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy
Secretary
Planning and Zoning Commission
Approved on this the 17`~ day of Apn1, 1997.
T. aters
Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
• •
FAIRMONT PARK EAST, SECTION IV-B
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLATS
RE-APPROVAL
Fairmont Park Joint Veuh~re
PO Box 63$
Baytown, Texas 7722
(Z81) 421.677
Fan (281} 4Z8-16$9
City ofLaPorte
Pp Box 1 I IS
IraPorte, Texas 77572
A'l'I'N: Plannning Depar~rsent Debbie R~ilmore
RE: Approval of Fairmont Park Bast Phase Q-B
Dear Ms. W~more:
Fairmont Park Joint Venture hereby requests the extension of the Planning
Commission's approval of Fairmont Park F:ask Phase 4B, which was previously
approved by the Commission as shown on the attached letter oaf approval. Fairmont
Park 3oint Venb.>re discussed this matteY with the Planning Department staffprior
to the expiration of the approval attached hereto.
Alternately, if the Planning Department deterYnines it is needed, Fairmont
Park Joint Venture hereby requests tha# the approval of the above referenced
section be placed on the agenda for the April Pla~ming Commission matting.
Thank you for your help in this rnadter and please contact me if you have
any questions_
'Yours truly,
. V
Eddie V. Gray
Faiiiz~ont Park joint Venture
• •
STAFF REPORT APRIL 17,1997
FAIRMONT PARK EAST, SECTION IV-B
RE-APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLATS
Requested Bv: Eddie V. Gray of Fairmont Park Joint Venture
Requested For: Fairmont Park East, Phase 4-B
Present Zoning: Low Density Residential (R-1)
Requested Use: 74 Lot Residential Subdivision (See Exhibit A)
Background: Fairmont Park East, Section IV-B Preliminary and Final plats were
considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its January
18, 1996 meeting.
The Commission granted approval of the Preliminary and Final
Plats subject to the fees for street lighting and street signage
installation being paid to the City. (See Exhibit B)
Staff's report from the January 18, 1996 has been attached to
provide the background on this subdivision. (See Exhibit C)
Analysis: Approval granted by the Commission required the developer to
begin construction within one year or to request an extension from
the City. Neither the construction nor the extension occurred and
the developer would like to now proceed with development plans.
The Commission is again asked to look at this development and
consider granting Preliminary and Final Plat approval of Section
IV-B.
Fmt. Pk. East, S. IV-B•
4/17/97 - P&Z Meeting
Page 2 of 2
Conclusion: There have been no changes in the subdivision plat.
As before, the Developer will be required to pay street
lighting construction cost and electrical service cost for one
yeaz. These monies will be deposited with the City in an
escrow account until such time as construction/installation is
complete. This payment shall be made prior to the Final Plat
document being released for recordation. Once complete, the
City will make payment to HL&P.
~ The Public Works Department is currently prepazing a cost
estimate for installation of signage in Section N-B. This
payment shall be made prior to the Final Plat document being
released for recordation.
Based on our review, staff recommends approval of the Fairmont
Park East, Section IV-B Preliminary and Final Plats with the
provision that the plats not be released for recordation until fees for
street lighting service and street signage installation have been paid
to the City.
• •
Staff Report January 18, 1996
Fairmont Park East, Sections N-B and IV-C
Background
Review and approval of the Fairmont Park East Sections IV-B and IV-C plats has been requested
by the developer. Copies of each of these plats, respectively identified as Exhibits A and B, are
attached and follow this report. Also attached and identified as Exhibit C is the November 8,
1991, Staff Report to the Commission regarding approval of subdivision Section IV-A. This
report contains an overview history of Section IV as a whole.
It should be noted that the original Section IV Final Plat was approved under the terms of a
previous "Development" Ordinance (#705). This ordinance did not contain the one year
"sunset" provisions for plat approvals that is found in Ordinance 1444. For this reason, the
original Section IV approval is technically still valid.
It is, as noted in the final paragraph of the 1991 Staff Report, on the advice of the City
Attorney's office, that Sections IV-B and IV-C (as with IV-A in 1991) have been presented as
separate plats. In evaluating the IV-B and IV-C submittals, staff has utilized the standards in
effect at the time of the original 1983 Section IV approval. The Section IV-A Final Plat which
was approved by the Commission on November 12, 1991, is nearing buildout. The developer
is now ready to construct Sections IV-B and IV-C.
Section IV-B will be comprised of 74 homesites (see Exhibit A). Development of this section
will include extension of Fleetwood Drive to connect with West Main Street. Section IV-C will
consist of 16 homesites (see Exhibit B). Although staff has chosen to address Sections IV-B and
IV-C in a single report, they are separate submittals. The Commission must act on them as
separate items.
Each of these subdivision sections is designated as a Major Subdivision requiring both
Preliminary and Final Plat approvals. Given the prior approvals granted to the original Section
IV, there is no useful purpose to be served by requiring the applicant to submit separate
Preliminary and Final Plat documents. The Commission should, however, note that any action
taken on the plats will be as both preliminary and final documents.
Analysis
As noted, Sections IV-B and IV-C are "sub-sections" of a previously approved Final Plat. Staff
has reviewed the original Section IV plat and supporting documentation. Sections IV-B and IV-
C will conform exactly to the original Section IV specifications as approved by the City in 1983.
There are certain specific elements of staff's review that we would like to bring to the
Commission's attention. IXH'
• Subdivision Covenants: Covenants were prepared, filed, and recorded for Section
IV in its entirety. When Sections IV-B and IV-C are recorded, the existing
• •
covenants will become valid and controlling. A copy of the Section IV covenants
has been provided to the City Attorney's office for review. The covenants satisfy
all applicable ordinance requirements.
• Park Land Dedication: Park land dedicated in conjunction with the Section II plat
satisfied ordinance requirements in effect in 1983.
• Street Lighting: The applicant has submitted a copy of the plat to H.L.& P. for
a street tight layout and cost estimate to be approved by the City once it is
completed. The developer will be required to pay construction cost and electrical
service cost for one year. These monies will be deposited with the City in an
escrow account until such time as construction installation is complete. This
payment shall be made prior to the Final Plat document being released for
recordation. Once complete, the City will make payment to H.L.& P.
• Street Signs: The City of La Porte will, at the developer's expense, install street
signage in the subdivision. The Public Works Department is currently preparing
a cost estimate for installation of signage in Sections IV-B and IV-C. Release of
the plats for recordation must not take place until the fees have been paid to the
City.
Conclusion
The Commission is at this time being asked to approve the plats of Fairmont Park East, Sections
IV-B and IV-C. As noted, the plats simply comprise portions of a larger plat that is already
approved.
Approving these plats will authorize the developer to proceed with construction of streets and
utilities. When these infrastructure improvements are completed and accepted by the City, the
plat, subject to the provisions noted below, may be released for recordation.
Based on our review, staff recommends approval of the Fairmont Park East, Sections IV-B and
IV-C plats with the provision that the plats not be released for recordation until fees for street
lighting service and street signage installation have been paid to the City.
Please note, Sections IV-B and IV-C should be acted upon separately and action on each should
note that it is being considered as both a Preliminary and Final Plat.
~~~~~
STAFF REPORT 11/8/91
L~
FAIRMONT PARK EAST SECTION 4, PHASE A
The purpose of this meeting is to consider approval of the subdivision plat for Fairmont
Park East, Section 4, Phase A. Attached is a chronological review of the status of the
subdivision.
9/3/80 Original approval by City Council of Fairmont Park East
Sections 1 through 4.
9/8/80 Original approval by Planning & Zoning Commission of
Fairmont Park East Sections 1 through 4.
11 /3/83 Planning & Zoning Commission approval of Fairmont Park East
Sections 3 & 4. After approval, Section 3 was constructed
and recorded; Section 4 was not constructed or recorded.
9/19/89 City received revisions to the plat and construction plans that
reflected phasing Section 4 into three (3) phases. Staff
reviewed for completeness and approved.
10/19/89 Phase 4A presented to Planning & Zoning Commission for
information only (see staff report attached). No action by the
Planning & Zoning Commission requested.
10/18/91 Completion of water, sewer, storm sewer and street
improvements; accepted by City (see letter dated 10/31 /91
to Mr. Gray).
Since the originally approved Section 4 replat was never built or recorded, the City
Attorney's office advises the Planning & Zoning Commission to approve as Section 4,
Phase A to avoid future confusion with the approval in 1983. See fetter dated 10/31/91
to Mr. Gray regarding completion of remaining improvements prior to issuance of building
permits.
E~HlB~~.r
• •
EXHIBITS
s^sap:P~6 g ~~ s~=sa as~~le£ sppy gnq:F£s~~;Fg~¢g~ ^pq~
i, ov s s6=. e$s:£^: °e' =R~Isi~~:sgl~F vR
a~si,~. is !^F~ •G£s. ,.;~ ~~
!a ~ ~~ 66F..~ .9~~Gge$ IE lag3£•=; a~i~
°s•a£; ~ %~E£ a. E~ a z~! ggla!•,~a£~i,.~
~ !:; E •E.. QE F ~~
£ Je a 3 ~r.l .ii ~ :I
'ryaa 6 I• ~"a. fli, xXa ~G ta`':1~~;=~~a.i1$.
! .bs£ I~I:I. e~ s:.£
iF ~ ~~ gF~as ~ ~~l;ff ~"sS:6i ~~ iFEi£Iv`^~:~j%~
E I:~oly: c :Es! ~°:~`r. ~a ss:£il!£a!"a£~
I" .. a
``
`"`
S.~ • \~ \
f~;.
, .c \2~~ A~\ ~
~<,
+• ti, ~ ,
f •~.
v
- '!- ~v "~• ,•~ ice,. ~ .~ ~ . ~i! ~- I _ .~~
}}
4 a ~~ { ~'P
1 ~ U
e a 71'
rs Fs: > ~ I,
. gF4 _ ; ~ _ ~__I ~ u S
~..
• &F~35i O ~ ~. ~ I n o t
~ o ~' ~ t 1
a~ agiF; ~ a m ,P 32 ~ ~ m I ~ *I
G6 ~~R¢~ m - ~A ~N N ~~~ m - ~ ` 1~- G IA i 1
a•;_E ~
.t .
_ , + ~ 9
1 I A r
~n ~ ~~V1 ~ ~ ~ 74 ~ a l ~ U\
H
z
H
.-. ro
x
H
H ~
~ H
H
H
°z
H
C
i~ 51~ a7~ rA ~ ~ ,r
~a r ~q ¢3~ 9R ~e
§ r
~S `.I ~ C~L ~~ ~
e ~g 9
v 8
~
~ gs ,
r
.:
,r •
J~ ,~
.
V ry
w ~ j jj~pr
0 :
• ~
~ :
~~rIL
ya a .~
~•
~ T
Fit
~ ~~ E
Y
S ~ I
ry ~ {1
is
a
1, r
~ A
`r
rr
n F.
nr•£
v ! 4
I
~~~ i~
~.
i
~
^
~C
~
a
°• .
sp o~
IDQ !~
a
c •I :ay ice' ~
s r• ° "7
~ CC
c (~~1, " ~°"' FLEETWOOD DRIVE 'T•~~
a -_~ ro•ec.:7 -I `74` 7.• ,•~ ~~ ~I' io'wt.~j ~~' - ~ ~' ..• n• (~ a:'es~: T'i ~ _
~I I .. ~ ~ ~ 41_ ~ I 1 ~ i , IS I ~.
L_.. _ ,,. ,...•
....--1 I Ssv/-N ~\ O f»T..T..r3ivriN ~ `- -~:::;- i I 1: ~
I N N j l,~I ~ ~ ~ N ~; ; J g'
I ~a ~ e I ! I
-I ~ ~ ~ -I------~--~ --• -----~
til I ~ ~ ~ I I
vi + -~7 1. 1----" C ~`'~ I I 1
7~ • I I
I -c .~ I I~
I I a o f ,~ w I .I ~, ~ O r ~ I, I y~ r,
I I m I I ( m a. I I y
_{ I I~ i
I c I r _ --- I Y
I ~ 3 ~ :IN n ~ ~? FII ~ 'I
I I~ ~a 1 m 1 ~ I+I `- ivy m ~' aql~ v~'
' ~ ~c-TivlN ~ O •_ ~•Wp~'N - ~~seiirN a~ Z -- I _ M.i4'r.V 4 :h
0
J fi , _ !.. n III ~ "'I ! -pi ,'~~ w I~ I ,~ I
r _ / _ _. I
I SPIN!-N ~ • ' A1lrlA~ I I JA(/%N~ ~ 1 ,~ AA7tPl.~ I I 1,
~''' I I 1
I I e~ F ~~ ~ I I t+~! I
. L~ ,t.'c L~• I
IY/ .~ ,a O. ,~ J y6. $ tel. I
---
I c It
;Fc ~~ ~s ~~V ! ~ i ~ ~ ~i. ~ /I I
s ~ r a.
F$~es ~. lE~~g~.,c ~ ~-7 ti
ISZ C~CL ~V .ie ~~~'41~ F~.13E N-C _2-~-
.l;c ~ c r! ;~a `
~: "~~Fe g ~i I" I~ - s
Aga = ~,:E.~I ~o
i $• ~.I,
it I4^~~ ~ ,~~iEll~~• :~ ~~ n ~
'"r p ..~,
ra~`! s.gt~..ic~ o'r ~ ,
-1.
N GULF COAST ENGINEERING
r,,~~ ~ M AND SURVEYING
W ~ ~(~' ~ ~~~ P.O.BOX 3B2 LA MAROUE,TEXAS TT569
I : °p•.. ~~} JAMES Vk GARTRELL JR. P.E.,RP.S. TEI.EPNONE NUMBERS
s ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ r..:,. orv TEXA9 CITY-~Of-f70-t~!!
FAIRMONT PARK EAST
SECTION FOUR •- PHASE FOUR -- B
SUBDIVISION PLAT
i1
ZI
i
•
s
t
y
i
i
C~
•
~~ ~
~ ~` ~ '~
~~ ~ ~
'~~ ~"~~'
~ ~I.
~L~ TEXAS
January 19, 1996
Fairmont Park Joint Venture
Eddie V. Gray, Trustee
PO Box 638
Baytown, TX 77522
Re: Fairmont Park East, Section IV-C
Dear Mr. Gray:
The La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission, at its January 18, 1996, meeting, considered and granted
approval to the Fairmont Park East, Section IV-C Preliminary and Final Plats with the following provision:
• Fees for street lighting service and street signage installation must be made to the City.
This provision must be met prior to the plat being released for recordation.
Sincerely,
~~~
'~ i ,*
Betty Wafers
Chairman, La Porte Planning & Zoning Commission
c: Mayor and City Council
Robert T. Herrera, City Manager
John Joerns, Assistant City Manager
Knox Askins, City Attorney
Planning & Zoning Commission Members
,,~.
'B~
('.l.>. fiux l I I ~ • L:, I'urt~~. < ~xas ~ -~ . ~-'t I i ~ ° (i I ~) ~}71-~~~=~~
•
•
BONCOSKY TRUCI~:ING TERMINAL
(PLANNED UNIT DE~IELOPMENT)
GENERAL PLAN
•
CITYOF LA PORTS
PLAT~IA,f OR DEVELOPNIENTSI~-BIYIITTAL
APPLICA'T'ION
(Allplat submittals to be reviewed and considered for
presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission
must be accompanied by this application and
necessary documentation listed herein. Submittals
wilInot be reviewed by staff without this application.)
•
OFFICE USE ONLY
~ ~ r V t
DATE RECENED: ~~-'< Z.~ ! ~"
suaMrrru. R: _ q~ ~ ~ ~'
xECEIPT x: _ lU O~4 (o ~,'~
PLANNING Sc Z N G ~fEE"I~`IG
DATE: ~I~ ~ `~
Type of Submittal: Genera ~,~~ ~` ~~Fe Plat (~ Final Plat (~
~ ., ~..
~~ -
Date: 3--1-t - , o~ erson(s): ~ ~~~ .> Phone: ~} -2
9fln
Name of Propos opment• ~ - ~ -
Name of Dev opera - ~{~~' ~- ~ •. i - ~ '~, ;;
~' ~ ~' honed 4-T4- Zgnt~
Address of Level era A~k~ ~~ 1 ~ ~yr~ ~
ni ~ v ~ O r' `~ ~ S
Number of ectior~s_ Nur~ ~ F ~~ ~~" .~~_;~~ ~ _
~-- -~ ~ i - -3 ' .may -~~~'S` ; ~~ ~ =~
Legal Descri tion ~rE- PL ~ " - .•.;~~~~ ~, 104
'+ ~' 3 ~
>~ 7 _
FiiinQ Fee: ~ _ --.. - ~ ~ ~~ ..._ ~ s
Amount: _ ~ ~eiDt T: ! ~~ i' ~
y i ~~
Checks should be made pay to the; C~ Qfi .L~.-Pq~te.
List All Other Contact Persons: -
Name Address Phone Fax
~r~r-r ~ ~5~~~~
• •
Staff Report Boncosky Trucking Terminal Apri117,1997
General Plan
Reauested Bv: John Boncosky of Boncosky Services
Reauested For: A 6.3192 acre tract of land out of a portion of Blocks 1203 and
1204; Town of La Porte, now known as Tract 1K, Johnson Hunter,
Abst. 35, and portion of Tract 37A & 37B, George B. Mc Kinstry,
Abst. 47, which is further described as being located in the 1700
Block of South 16~` Street, La Porte, Texas.
Present Zoning: Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) with Special Conditional Use
Permit #SCU 96-003.
Reauested Use: Trucking Operation with Tank Truck Cleaning
Background: The tract in question was assigned a P.U.D. zoning designation in
September, 1989 when the City adopted the current City Zoning
Map, in conjunction with the new Zoning Ordinance. The current
P.U.D. zoning designation with the Special Conditional Use Permit
for the tract in question was assigned in November, 1996.
On the west side of South 16~' Street, between the street and the
raikoad tracks, there is currently three (3) zoning designations.
Closest to Fairmont Parkway is a General Commercial (GC) zone
and moving south the zoning becomes Light Industrial (LI). The
third zoning designation, which includes the tract in question, is
P.U.D. (See Exhibit A)
On the east side of South 16~` Street, between the street and Hwy.
146 there are two (2) zoning designations. The property closest to
Fairmont Parkway is zoned GC and the remainder of the property
to the south is P.U.D. A large portion of the properties
immediately east of Hwy. 146 are also zoned P.U.D. (See Exhibit
A)
This tract was reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission in
1996. The applicant had requested a zone change (Zone Change
Request #R96-005) from P.U.D. to Heavy Industrial (HI).
However, based on concerns raised, staff suggested an Intra-
district P.U.D. with a Special Conditional Use Permit to allow the
trucking operation including tank truck cleaning.
Boncosky Trucking Te~Tninal •
4/17/97 - P&Z Meeting
Page 2 of 6
• On October 17, 1996, a public hearing was held to consider
Zone Change Request #R96-004. The Commission chose to
recommend for approval by City Council an Intra-District
P.U.D. with a Special Conditional Use Permit subject to
specific conditions. The conditions were as follows:
1. The property be formally platted as a 6.3192 acre tract.
2. Any development beyond that currently presented will
require a separate Special Conditional Use Permit.
3. No changes or amendments shall be made to the recorded
General Plan (site plan) and covenants without first obtaining
authorization from the City of La Porte.
4. Drainage plans shall be approved by Harris County and the
City of La Porte.
5. It should be noted in the Special Conditional Use Permit and
in the deed covenants that the use of this property is limited
to a trucking operation, which includes tank truck cleaning.
6. Applicant's submittal of a Special Conditional Use Permit
Application.
7. Applicant's submittal and filing of a General Plan (site plan)
in accordance with the City's Zoning Ordinance 1501,
Sections 8-400 and 10-100.
8. Proposed deed restrictions, assessments, and covenants shall
be approved by the City of La Porte and included on the
General Plan (site plan) prior to the formal recording of said
document.
9. Landscaping shall be located across the front of the property
to provide compatibility with proposed neighboring
residential land uses. Required landscaping shall be properly
maintained in the future.
10. All owners of said property should provide their signatures
authorizing the platting of the 6.3192 acre tract and the Intra-
district P.U.D.
Boncosky Trucking TeZ'~fiinal •
4/17/97 - P&Z Meeting
Page 3 of 6
11. Ask the developer to place any buildings near the front or
South 16th Street frontage along with the landscaping
referenced in Item #9. The tank cleaning and truck
operations would be located in the rear or west side of the
property.
12. Ordinance #1352 amended Chapter 25, Article V, S. 25-
84, of the City's Code of Ordinances, to read: Truck
terminals shall be located in areas directly adjacent to the
right-of--way of a designated truck route. Section 25-81
identifies 16th Street, from Barbours Cut Blvd. south to
Fairmont Parkway, as a designated truck route.
The property is located south of Fairmont Parkway and is not
currently on a designated truck route. Approval of the
proposed truck terminal (SIC #4231) should be subject to this
portion of 16th Street being approved as a truck route by La
Porte City Council. The rezoning would be conditional upon
said approval.
On November 11, 1996, City Council considered Zone Change
Request #R96-004 and Ordinance 1501-V was approved by
Council granting the P.U.D. with Special Conditional Use
Permit #SCU 96-003 for a trucking operation with tank truck
cleaning. Based on the ordinance, eleven of the twelve
conditions recommended by the Commission were attached to
the SCUP and the SCUP and conditions are required to be
set forth upon the face of the plat. The only condition no
longer necessary is the requirement for the applicant's
submittal of a SCUP application.
Analysis: Zoning Ordinance Section 8-100 states that the purpose of the
(P.U.D. zoning) district is to provide for ..."development as an
integrated coordinated unit as opposed to traditional parcel by
parcel, piecemeal, sporadic and unplanned approach to
development." The P.U.D. zoning assigned to the tract in question
was to great extent based on the large amount of undeveloped,
unsubdivided acreage located in this area. The PUD development
requirements were an effective means to ensure that development
of the tract in question would be in accordance with sound
planning guidelines.
Boncosky Trucking Te3lninal •
4/17/97 - P&Z Meeting
Page 4 of 6
Staff, in reviewing the applicant's request, has found it to be
compatible with the City's underlying Land Use Plan. Currently,
there is a truck operation in the LI zone adjoining the northern
boundary of this 6.3192 acre tract.
Using Appendix "C" of the Development Ordinance as a guide,
Staff has reviewed the Boncosky Trucking Terminal General Plan
and found it complies with some of the requirements. A copy of
the General Plan Checklist follows this report. A copy of the
Boncosky Trucking Terminal General Plan is also included. (See
Exhibit )
Development Ordinance Section 4.01(B) requires the Commission,
subsequent to review of a General Plan, take one of the following
actions.
1. Approve 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 & 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 & Zoning
Commission.
Conclusion: As noted above, the Boncosky Trucking Terminal General Plan
has been found to comply with some City regulations; however,
many issues remain. The areas of concern are as follows:
As required by Ordinance 1501-V, SCUP #96-003 and the
eleven conditions should be shown on the face of the general
plan.
2. The general plan does not include a surveyor seal. The legal
description provided in Request #96-004 and subsequently
made a part of SCUP#96-003 varies from the legal description
shown on the general plan.
Boncosky Trucking TelTtiinal •
4/17/97 - P&Z Meeting
Page 5 of 6
A metes and bounds description sealed by a surveyor was
provided to the City following the October Planning & Zoning
Commission meeting. Any confusion regarding the proper
legal description should be cleared up by the developer.
3. The 6.3192 acre property needs to be platted. All owners of
said property should provide their signatures authorizing the
platting.
4. The general plan should show proposed phases.
5. A proposed schedule of construction including the approximate
starting and completion date of the complete development plan
has not been provided.
6. Zoning of this tract and adjoining properties are not shown.
7. See General Plan Checklist comments .
8. Conditions of #SCUP 96-003 need to be satisfied.
9. Water and sewer extensions are required.
10. Additional water line information is needed. This includes
construction/design information and verification of the water
line easement north of the truck terminal site.
11. Proposed water line easements both on and off site need to be
properly executed.
12. Drainage plans shall be approved by Harris County and the
City of La Porte.
13. Additional detention information will need to be provided.
Specifics concerning the calculations and side slope design
should be provided.
14. Amend driveway(s) to comply with industrial regulations
under the City's zoning ordinance. Minimum 30' and
maximum 40' in width at the property line.
Boncosky Trucking TeTRiinal •
4/17/97 - P&Z Meeting
Page 6 of 6
15. Building lines need to be depicted for future reference. Due to
the industrial nature of the business, the setback should comply
with Heavy Industrial property. The front setback is 50', side
setbacks are 30' and the rear setback is 50'.
16. This portion of Powell (16~` Street) is not a designated truck
route. This action would need to occur to allow the
development of the property.
17. Proposed landscaping shall be subject to approval by the
Director of Planning.
18. Materials for the truck parking area need to be identified to
confirm dust-free surfacing and confirm year round access to
the fire hydrant.
A proval of the General Plan by the Commission authorizes the
developer to file a Preliminary Plat or Development Site Plan, as
the case may be.
Conditional Approval of the General Plan by the Commission
requires the submission of an amended General Plan and additional
documentation as specified by the Commission. This may be filed
concurrently with the Preliminary Plat or Development Site Plan.
Disapproval of the General Plan by the Commission requires
submission of a new General Plan.
A number of critical issues remain; therefore, Staff suggests the
submittal of the general plan may be premature. The Commission
may wish to consider "Disapproval" of the general plan.
• •
GENERAL PLAN CHECKLIST
Development Name:
Type of Development:
Location:
Date of Commission Review:
Boncosky Trucking Terminal
Trucking operation with tank truck cleaning
1700 Block South 16th
April 17, 1997
A. Graphic Contents
1. Name of Development:
2. Tvne of Development:
3. Description of Land:
4. Phases:
5. Name of Developer:
6. Name of Surveyor:
Name of Engineer:
7. Filing Date:
8. Scale:
9. North Arrow:
10. Key Mav:
11. Perimeter Boundaries:
12. Adjacent Properties:
13. Physical Features: (Detention)
14. Contour Lines:
15. Building L,roes:
Properly noted.
Properly noted.
Inadeq uate
Not shown.
Properl y noted.
Not shown.
Not shown.
Properl y noted.
Properl y noted.
Properl y noted.
Properl y noted.
Properl y noted.
Properl y noted.
Properl y noted.
Properl y noted.
`' Not shown.
U
General Plan Checklist Contd.
Page 2 of 2
16. Subdivisions:
17. Condominiums:
18. Reserves:
19. Unsubdivided Developments:
20. Streets:
21. Street Names:
22. Utility Easements:
23. Existing Public Utilities:
24. Flood Hazard Area:
25. Schematic Utility Layout:
(If Applicable)
B. Documentation
1.
2.
Comments:
N/A
N/A
N/A
*z Inadequate
Properly noted.
Properly noted.
Properly noted.
Properly noted.
*3 Inadequate
N/A until Preliminary Plat
La Porte Development Checklist: Submitted to the City.
Location or Vicinity Map: Shown on General Plan
* Identify owners of pr___posed 6.3192 acres.
*1 Use is compatible with a Heavy Industrial use: building lines should be identified
*2 Show number of stories for each building.
*3 Flood Zone not shown.
Reviewed By: ~ ITV Date: ~~ ~ 9 7
•
EXHIBITS
• n
w
~~' t
8?~ !24
i~ ~ ~ --'
~~~ ]" 4~~
`y .rua
w
~ • a
G ~
O
~o
~~
U; 3
4 0 iv
Q~ N
Q • f'I
O
Z ;~
K ' O
W v
H =
~ A
r
t
.'
op / r r
' 1 j USE ~XP A~S10~
;~
\C
\,y ~,,
~, ~,~,?
~~~ re
-l, 1.
ap' ~.
`YPf
;~.~
h,,\ ~
~ ...... ww.o,~.„w>,w
~E-w:
,[x3-
SM ,
~+ _ ~ a
' µr:n ; ~
i
i ~n~
o ~ - ----- ,~~~~- F. ~~~ I
~~ r f I
~ ~ +
~ i '~ 5~ ', ~ P ~' I
oR.,R ~ zP .
^ar±OR li w;i W+ Sw~ ~^ 1 I 4
h Sa ~°~ c - P~ J
_ 1^ ~ r I 4 i
I'' ~ i~l t I
_ II
I s~I D „~~' ~ I r ` I`
G ~
,,, --~~~'~ I ~+o~ac ~~
~ j ~ ! ~~9~'I I I ~~~ log '1 i
i ~
_ 1
~ ~. l ~- W -'"j
ru. ~ I ~ ~~;~ -
Q ~~~ ~ ~--- ~ ---{ Vin,
-i~ i
r ~ r .W . ~~ ~I, I } ` 7 I
s` s i ~ ,I 11 , l~~ ,Y{
1 s I , ~~~ _ ~ ``
. 4 ~ ~ ~I II ~. ~ I
S I
~I I ~ ~ E
I ` ~. s
~.OPBR , ' ; . t i
1 'gyp i
I -'o I L~ 14..~i ~l
~~ ~/ I i ! I ° ? ~r~
I ~P ~ Fyt~J' ,
` ' +
f
BONG OShY TRUCKING TERMINAL
GENERAL PLAN
FOR 6.3192 ACRES OF L4ND
DESCRIBED 1N DEED RECORDED IN F.C. No. 036-000876 H.CO.P.R.R.P.
BEI!CG OUT OF BLOCKS 1:03 AND 1204 AND
OUT OF WEST Q STREET AND 17TH STREET
PER THE MAP OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
NOTE:
VOLUME 60, PAGE 112, HARRIS COUNTY DEED RECORDS
' THIS PROPERTI ~s NDT WITHIN THE tDD YEAR F~oaD Putty OUT OF THE GEORGE B. McKINSTRY SURVEY, A-47
ACCORDING TO FIRM MAP COMMUNITY PANEL N0. d8201C0140 G
DATED: SEPTEMBER 28, 7990
A\D THE JOHNSON HUNTER 5UR1'EY, A-35
CITY OF LA PORTE, HARRIS COUNTI', TEXAS
F1LiNG DATE: APRIL 17, 1997
DE1'ELOPER: BONCOSI;~' SER1'IC'ES, INC.
= ~ CONSLtLTTNC E!~GINEERS. INC.
w +w u.:. su¢ ,y v.a, nw !!xe w.x ce~. !m-ss' .~ „y~~ a.~.,,.
~iOA .a . la. mm ~: nus ^en .+u< Ir.~ .m.zrx
C~
•
SPENCER LANDING SUBDIVISION
GENERAL PLAN
• •
Staff Report Spencer Landing Subdivision April 17, 1997
General Plan
Requested Bv: Mr. Brad Dill of B. D. Realty Advisors, L.L.C.
Requested For: 33.16 Acre Tract, being all of Outlots 34, 35, 46, 47, 54 and SS and Part of
Outlots 36, 45, 66 and 67, La Porte, Volume 59, Page 313, H.C.D.R,
situated in the Richard Pearsall Survey, Abstract 625, Hams County, Texas
Present Zoning: High Density Residential (R-3)
Requested Use: 140 Lot Residential Subdivision
Background: The proposed Spencer Landing is a major subdivision that will be located on
the north side of Spencer Highway. (See Exhibit A) This general plan was
considered by the Commission during their March 20, 1997 meeting. At that
time it was known as "Spencer Lake" and was to have 112 lots. Based on
the concerns raised in that meeting, the developer has amended his general
plan and is now calling the project "Spencer Landing". Staff's report from
the March 20, 1997 meeting is attached for reference. (See Exhibit B)
At or prior to Final Plat approval, the payment of money in lieu of parkland
will need to be made. Based on the new 140 lot layout, the payment would
be $24,500.00. This figure is based on a cost of $175.00 per lot. In
accordance with this regulation, the submitted General Plan does not
designate any parkland.
A water and sewer extension, at the expense of the property owner to the
west of the proposed subdivision, was required for the development of the
church site. A pro-rata share of the extension cost will need to be paid to the
City so reimbursement can be made to that property owner. The specific
amount will be addressed in the review and approval of the sections.
Staff has reviewed the Spencer Landing General Plan and found it complies
with the requirements of the Development Ordinance. A copy of the
General Plan Checklist follows this report. Some issues remain; 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/or additional documentation as specified by the
Commission. As part of the Conditional Approval, the Commission
should require the developer's compliance with the list of items shown
prior to the submission of an amended General Plan. The following
items should be addressed:
Spencer Landing Subdiv. ~neral Plan •
4/17/97 - P & Z Meeting
Page 2 of 2
1) Any deficiencies shown on the General Plan Checklist should be
provided by the developer.
2) Restricted Reserve "A" has been reduced from 7.2529 acres to 4.214
acres and has been identified as "restricted for detention and
recreational use". The developer should provide adequate
information so the Commission and staff can address any remaiting
issues.
a) Is the reserve still a combination fishing pond and on-site
detention area?
b) Is a small park area for children still located within this
reserve?
c) The new pond design (depth, maintenance, ownership, etc.)
has not been provided.
d). Fencing needs to be addressed.
3) Water, sewer and stormwater need to be relocated prior to the
submittal of the amended general plan. These new locations will
also need to be shown on the Phase I and II preliminary plats.
a) For maintenance reasons, the layout of the sanitary sewer
needs to be adjusted so that all lines are in the street right-of-
way whenever possible. Back lot sewer facilities are not
desirable. The subdivision designer can visit with the City
Engineer to ensure proper locations of lines.
b) For maintenance reasons, the layout of the water lines needs
to be adjusted so that all lines are in the street right-of--way
whenever possible. Back and side water facilities are not
desirable. The subdivision designer can visit with the City
Engineer to ensure proper location of lines.
c) For maintenance reasons, side lot storm sewer lines are not
desirable. Route in street right-of--way.
• •
GENERAL PLAN CHECKLIST
Development Name:
Type of Development:
Location:
Date of Commission Review:
Spencer Landing
Residential Subdivision
11.400-11.500 Block Spencer Highway
April 17, 1997
A. Graphic Contents
1. Name of Development:
2. Type of Development:
3. Description of Land:
4. Phases:
5. Name of Developer:
6. Name of Surveyor:
Name of En ineer:
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.
Properly noted.
Pro early noted.
Properly noted.
Properly noted.
Not shown.
Not shown.
Properly noted.
Properly noted.
Properly noted.
Properly noted.
Properly noted.
Properly noted.
Properly noted.
Properly noted.
Incomp lete
•
General Plan Checklist Contd.
Page 2 of 2
16. Subdivisions:
17. Condominiums:
18. Reserves:
19. Unsubdivided Developments:
20. Streets:
•
Properly noted.
N/A
Properly noted.
N/A
Properly noted.
21. Street Names: Properly noted.
22. Utility Easements: '' Inadeq uate
23. Existing Public Utilities: Properly noted.
24. Flood Hazard Area: Properly noted.
25. Schematic Utility Lavout: N/A until Preliminary Plat.
(If Applicable)
B. Documentation
1. La Porte Development Checklist: Not furnished to the City.
2. Location or Vicinity Map: Shown on General Plan
Comments:
Correct front building line in Block 4 to 20' in lieu of 10' shown
*1 Water. sewer. and stormwater should be located in street right-of--way not in easements
Reviewed By: ~ `~' ~ Date: "7 ' 7~
•
EXHIBITS
_____
5 BB•57'9A" ~ 915]?~
..... ,. ~... y,.
:_ _
~. ________ _ .., r __,~-~
~~
e srescE
-~ --- °
__ F~. ~~
J
~' _ _ -
~ll~ ' , ----~
- ~ ~~~ - - - ~~~~' 3 _ _ -
__v _
~- -' 0 ~ I ~SPE\CER L11DI~C DRI6E ~ ~ _~
~ _ -- -
,
~ '
o
~. ~
,
~ ,_ .
c O
_ --~- ~
~ -, ~
1 _
4 lr Tr
.: i
I mo, L - E ~ --
~_- _ ~~ , ,
_
~
c
-
Y ~
:.. - ~ i I - --
~ 89'5729' k 289.98
~
i
~' . E I
z C .C
___ F
;f.
~
I'.
` ~`~ '~_~_
__.._.__~ __C~
! -
U
Z'
~ 6 F.~` ~.. .
J il_"
~r
<
I~ ~
~'
p
Z Ya~
•` ~.. ,nit"
-
~'
~ -
~ i z s~ _
~4
1
X
~.
Z C~.
s
~
~ -7j
" L , `Y
!, 1
,_ ~ S _~ -
`
c
,, _ I ;
~
-=-
~~I m'
I ~
,
.. 9 -
F ~ ~
_ r N
_
"'
~ zA
s
- ~0--------
~ ~ ~, m
~-.-~
N
r, 1 1, ~ .
P ~_ __ g ~. jC.~~.~ O
V.
~ ~
_
e~ ;.
1
9 9 --.~ _
- - -- 65
. ~ ~ I + ~~
~ ~ ~ _ _Sbl`TI~ ~,,_-t, ~ r
'~ r~ - ~~
[ice ;:;,~> ~ .%
' ~ _ ~ iii }^
~,>~.~,~ [I €~I {I E4 SPENCER `RIGRFAI'
A, -- N-..
~~'
\ -
F L
4 >' _
~ 4 _.~. 4.
" ~
GE\ER.~L PL.-~\ ?~ CIS
1I~E`CCER L:~\DI'~u SI~BDI~~I~~O\
a P,ESIDE~TI~L DEt'ELOPEIIE~ T
CO'~T.aI~1~G 5 BLOChS a~D 1-10 LoT
a\D 0\E RESTRICTED RESEP.t~E
;)Et"ELOPER - BD P.EaLTI~ .tDt~ISOP.~. L.1..('.
33.16 aCRES
CALLED 32.9801 .~C. TE.
FILE \n. G5~6836 is
F1L11 CODE '~o. 1a9-82-0-113 O.C.C.H.('.':
(',T1' OF I_a PORTL. H.tP.RiS COL'\TT. TE\a
APRIL 1991 ;.iFs4vzartwL
I11:.~~,~Oi>7
`v
~f~ COSSL'LTl\C F.SGISEEP~. 15C
~ ~ w s~- a
~iOq «,. s . ,. ,.
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 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.
Staffs 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 pazk 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 pazkland
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 pazkland.
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
• Pazks/Conservation Plan
The land use plan shows this proposed subdivision to be located in an azea 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 •
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. Approve 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 rior 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).
~CHiB~ ~
• i
STAFF REPORT
•
Staff Report
Staff encourages the Commission to review the Background section that describes
the land use/zoning history for a proposed P.U.D. development. Upon review of
previous records it appears that the Commission granted the P.U.D. zone based on
arguments and information supplied that implied the P.U.D. designation (and
proposed apartments) would be integrally planned with the entire 107± acre tract.
The staff report of April 21, 1994 indicated that a new General Plan for the entire
tract would be required, If this was not the Commission's intent then we can shift
focus to review of just the 17 acre P.U.D
There were two items on the April 17, 1997, Agenda that related to the
development of a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) within a P.U.D district
previously approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
To appropriately review and evaluate this P.U.D. it is important to provide a
history of the Commission's previous Land Use2oning recommendations and
the general plans that have been submitted.
To assist the Commission and Staff in reviewing and evaluating these requests
we have provided a short overview of the P.U.D. process, background on
previous Land Use /Zoning actions and checklists for:
Ord. Section
^ Procedure for Establishing/Developing P.U.D. 8-401
^ Review and Evaluation Criteria 8-402
^ Termination 8-403
^ Subsequent Procedures 8-404
The applicant is currently in the initial phase of a Planned Unit Development
where the submittals are more general in nature. After review by the Planning
and Zoning Commission and approval by City Council the applicant proceeds to
the subsequent phase where submissions become more specific and detailed.
The following is a synopsis of the P.U.D. process. The full process, evaluation
and specific requirements are in Articles 8 and 10 of the Zoning Ordinance (other
sections of the Zoning Ordinance and other Ordinances and policies of the City
also apply).
• •
Overview
A Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) is both 1) a zoning district and 2) a specific
procedure for establishing or developing a Planned Unit Development.
As a Zoning District the purpose and intent of a P.U.D. is expressed in Section 8-
100 of the Zoning Ordinance. In summary;
• to provide for grouping of land parcels for development
as an integrated unit vs. traditional parcel by parcel
piecemeal approach
• to introduce flexibility of site design for conservation of open
space by clustering buildings and activities through Conditional
Use provisions
• to promote control management, integrated planning, joint or
common uses and maintenance of open spaces.
As a procedure (Sec 8-401) to either establish or develop a P.U.D. there are
s ecific submittals required for review and evaluation. The process is
characterized by two phases which move from the general to the specific and as
it does the project becomes more defined and more detailed submissions are
required.
Finally, after reviews and recommendations by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and approval by City Council, the result is a Final Planned Unit
Development Plan (Sec.10-101 (7)) which becomes an official file of the City of
La Porte and consists of the following:
^ Conditional Use Permit(s)
^ the approved general plan(s)
^ any major or minor development site plans
^ preliminary and final subdivision plats
^ conditions, covenants, deed restrictions, dedications and controls
No Building Permit or Development Authorization (as defined by the
Development Ordinance) can be issued until all required components of a Final
Planned Unit Development Plan have been approved (Sec.10-101 (8).
Furthermore, deviations from the Planned Unit Development Plan (not permitted
by provisions in Section 10) require review and recommendation of the
Commission and subsequent approval of the City Council.
The flexibility afforded the developer by the P.U.D. process is balanced by the
thorough planning process, commitments made by the developer and subsequent
reviews conducted by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
• • Pagel/3
P.U.D. DISTRICT PROCEDURES
OUTLINE /COMMENTS ON REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
Sec. 8 - 401 COMMENTS
Procedure for Establishing/Developing P.U.D.
Application for Conditional Use Permits
per Sect. 10-200
1.) Application for General Plans
2.) SubmittaUFiling for a General Plan
(Per Development Ord.), >~ the
following information;
General area wide development
plan outlining size and surrounding
area.
1.) Uses
2.) Zoning
3.) Streets
4.) Grade or topography
5.) Density
6.) Utilities and drainage
3.) Proposed schedule of constnaction
delineating phases, starting and
completion dates
4.) Written description documenting type
of property controls to be utilized to
administration, control and maintain any
common open areas
•
P.U.D DISTRICT PROCEDURES
•
Page2/3
OUTLINE /COMMENTS ON REVIEW AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
Sec. 8-402
Review and Evaluation Criteria
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council
COMMENTS
1) Adequate property control is proposed to
protect the individual owners: rights and
property values, and the public
responsibility for maintenance and
upkeep.
2) The interior circulation plan plus access
from and onto public right-of-ways does
not create congestion or dangers and is
adequate for the safety of the project
residents and the general public.
3) A sufficient amount of useable open space
is provided.
4) The arrangement of uses does not
unreasonably disturb the privacy or
property values of the surrounding
residential uses.
5) The preliminary drainage and utility
system plans are adequate based on a
report from the Director of Community
Development and the final drainage and
utility plans shall be subject to his
approval.
6) The development schedule insures a
logical development of the site which will
protect the public interest and conserve
the land.
7) The development is in compliance with the
requirements of the La Porte Development
Ordinance.
8) Dwelling unit requirements are in general
compliance with the applicable district
provisions
9) The provisions of Section 10-200,
Conditional Use procedures of this
Ordinance are considered satisfactorily
met.
10) The development is in conformance with
the comprehensive plan.
•
P.U.D. DISTRICT PROCEDURES
Page 3/3
OUTLINE !COMMENTS ON TERMINATION AND
SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURES
Sec. 8 - 403 COMMENTS
Termination
If no detailed site plans or
plats are filed within one year
of last approval, the
Conditional Use Permit
becomes null and void, unless
an extension granted.
Specific
Sec.8 - 404
Subsequent Procedures
1.) Once a general plan and
Conditional Use Permit have
been approved, Applicant
may submit for approval on
specific site plans or
preliminary plat, subject to
requirements of section 10 -
100 P.U.D. procedures.
2.) Each subsequent request for
site plans or plat approvals
shall be based on the
approved general plans.
3.) A change in the developer's
plans requires submission
and approval of a new general
plan.
To: Members. the Pl and Zo Commission
ann~ng ~
From: Guy Rankin, Director of Planning
Subject: Workshop Meetings
Date: April 1, 1997
As discussed at our last meeting, beginning Apr~117`~', the Commission w~l meet at 5:30 PM
for a workshop session prior to conducting our regular meeting at 7:00 PM. Apri117'~ we
wi71 begin review of the Comprehensive Plan, so please remember to bring it with you.
Apn117 Comprehensive Plan Topia What is Comprehensive Planning? Why Plan?
Guy Rankin Overview: Volume I, Section I of the Comprehensive Plan
Doug Kneupper Section 1.1 Master Plan
Art Flores Section 1.2 Land-Use Plan
Debbie Wilmore Section 1.3 Thoroughfare Plan
Section 1.5 Open Space and Pedestrian System Plan
Section 1.6 Community Facilities Plan
Section 1.7 Residential Development Plan
Section 1.8 Beautification and Conservation Plan
Section 1.9 Safety Plan, Redevelopment
May 15 Comprehensive Plan Overview: Volume I, Section I of the Comprehensive Plan
Guy Rankin Section 1.4 Ut~ities Plan
Doug Kneupper Section 1.11 Capital Improvement Program
John Joems Section 1.12 Capital Financing
Overview: Volume II (Background)
June 19 Comprehensive Plan Overview: Volume III
Guy Rankin Section 3.0 Market Analysis and Economic Development
Art Flores Section 4.0 Environment
Debbie W~lmore Section 5.0 Comprehensive Plan Development
July 17 Zoning Ordinance Topic What is Zoning?
Guy Rankin Article 1 Tide, Purpose, and Interpretation
Art Flores Article 2 Official Zoning Map Provisions
John Armstrong Article 3 Definitions
Article 4 General Provisions
Article 5 Residential District Regulations
Article 6 Commercial District Regulations
August 21 Zoning Ordinance Article 7 Industrial District Regulations
Guy Rankin Article 8 Planned Unit Development District
Art Flores Article 10 Special Regulations
John Armstrong Article 11 Administration and Enforcement
September 18 Development Ordinance In its entirety.
Guy Rankin
Doug Kneupper
Debbie W~lmore
John Jcerns
October 16 Bayfront Master Plan In its entirety.
Guy Rankin
Art Flores