Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-1999 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of the La Porte Planning and Zoning CommissionOLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSI09 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 1999 Members Present: Betty Waters, Michael Jetty, Sandie Staniszewski, James Zoller Members Absent: Dottie Kaminski, Hal Lawler, Melton Wolters City Staff Present: Planning Director Doug Kneupper, City Planner Masood Malik, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee I. CALL TO ORDER. Meeting called to order by Chairperson Waters at 6:00 PM. II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 23, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING. Motion by James Zoller to approve the minutes of September 23, 1999. Second by Sandie Staniszewski. All were in favor and the motion passed. III. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. Chairperson Waters opened the public hearing at 6:00 PM. CONSIDER ZONE CHANGE REQUEST #R99-003, REQUESTED FOR LOT 109, BLOCK 8, SPENCER HIGHWAY ESTATES, ALSO KNOWN AS 3709 CLARKSVILLE STREET, LA PORTE, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A ZONE CHANGE FROM RESIDENTIAL (114) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC). Staff's report presented by Masood Malik. The owner, Frank Pickens, has made application for a zone change from Residential (R-1) to General Commercial (GC) for property located at 3709 Clarksville Street. The owner intends to remodel an existing building and make improvements to the site. The facility has operated as a nonconforming use since annexation in 1987. Rezoning would alleviate a degree of nonconformity and render the building a conforming use in the General Commercial zone. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners adjacent to the site. Staff received two favorable responses and one in opposition. Staff recommended approval of the request. 1. PROPONENTS Frank Pickens, of Galena Park, has owned the property since 1978. Mr. Pickens intends to improve the property by landscaping, repainting the building, installing blacktop pavement at the entrance to the site, and eventually, construct other buildings. Mr. Pickens asked for favorable consideration by the Commission. 2. OPPONENTS There were none. IV. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. Chairperson Waters closed the public hearing at 6:10 PM. V. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ZONE CHANGE REQUEST #R99-003. Planning and Zoning Coeission • Minutes of November 18, 1999 Page 2 of 2 Motion by Jim Zoller to recommend City Council approval of Zone Change Request #R99-003. Motion seconded by Sandie Staniszewski. All were in favor and the motion passed. VI. CONSIDER PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FAIRMONT PARK EAST SECTION VII. Staffs report presented by Masood Malik. Eddie Gray has applied for Preliminary Plat approval of Section VII (68 lots) in the Fairmont Park East Subdivision, located off Driftwood Drive, between Spencer Hwy. and Fairmont Pkwy. Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat. Motion by Sandie Staniszewski to approve the Preliminary Plat for Section VII, of the Fairmont Park East Subdivision. Second by Jim Zoller. All were in favor and the motion passed. VII. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Malik provided updates on sidewalks along the Fairmont and Underwood sides of the Fairmont Oaks Apts. and deceleration lanes along Fairmont Parkway. Mr. Kneupper provided additional information about results of Hams County's traffic study that identified locations for deceleration lanes. Mr. Malik also provided an update on the activities of the Census 2000 Committee. Members and staff that attended the Texas APA Conference in October discussed the conference. The Commission expressed a desire for all members to be given the opportunity to attend the annual conference. City Council has directed the Commission to review current provisions for storage of shipping containers and make a recommendation to Council for an ordinance amendment. John Armstrong briefly spoke about the impact that the proposed port expansion might have on the City. Vlll. ADJOURN Chairperson Waters declared the meeting adjourned at 6:35 PM. Res � fully submitted Peggy Secrete Planning and Zoning Commission Approved on this 16"' day of December, 1999. 14 ry."W(le rs Chairn Planning and Zoning Commission ZONE CHANGE REQUEST #R 99-004 • Staff Report December 16,1999 Zone Change Request #R 99-004 Location: TRS IA, 2A, Lots 3,4, & 5 Block A, tracts 1B, 2B, lots 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 Block B, Moody Lloyd, T U/R; TR 13C-1,13C-2, & 13C-3, Abstract 30, W. P. Harris; Units 1-25, Bldg. I, II, & III, Sunrise T/H, Sunrise Dr.; Units A-L, Bldg. A, B, & C, Bay Colony Condos, Bay Colony Drive. Present Zoning: Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) Requested Zoning: Medium Density Residential (R-2) Background: • The properties described above are currently zoned Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) as per City's Zoning Map. Planned unit development means a land area characterized by a unified site design which (a) has individual building sites and provides common spaces, and (b) is designed to be capable of satisfactory use and operation as a separate entity without necessarily having the participation of other building sites or other common property. Mr. Charles Whittenton, authorized representative for the property owner, Bernice Polly Whittenton, is seeking permission to develop a single-family dwelling on tracts IA & 2A, Block A, Moody Lloyd T. 14.484 acre tract out of 200 acre W. W. Ralston Tract, located on Sunrise Drive (Exhibit A). • Development of a single-family residence on an existing subdivided lot is not an effective use of P.U.D. zoning. • The applicant and the City staff are using this opportunity to remove some existing subdivided lots, existing townhouses, and condos from the P.U.D. zone and place them in Medium Density Residential (R 2) zone. At the time of annexation, the Shady Oaks Subdivision off South Broadway west of Galveston Bay, was assigned a zoning classification of Low Density Residential (R-1). Later, a comprehensive rezoning was carried out in conjunction with adoption of the City's present Zoning Ordinance. The properties, as mentioned above, were taken into Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) along with tract 13C, an approx. 9.4380 acre undeveloped site between North Shady Lane and the Bayport Channel south of the subdivision. P&Z 12/ 16/99 R#99-004 Page 2 of 2 Analysis: The applicant owns approximately 0.512 acre (22,320 sq. ft.) tract or parcel of land along Sunrise Drive. The area under study comprises 9.71 acres, which include Bay Colony Condos, Sunrise Townhouses and other subdivided lots as listed above. The tract in question is surrounded by single family dwellings to the north and south, east by medium density residential (Townhouses and Condos), and to the west by undeveloped tracts along the Bayou. With the extent and nature of development, the area is suitable for mid density residential (R 2), where single family residential (R-1) is a permitted use as per the Code of Ordinances. It is important to carefully consider a number of issues prior to making land use decisions, including but not limited to the following: • Character of the surrounding and adjacent areas; • Use of the nearby properties; • Harm to the value of adjacent land uses. Staff, has studied the existing land uses of nearby properties, and the extent to which a land use classification would be in harmony with such existing uses or the anticipated use of the other properties. Use of the nearby properties is predominantly single-family residential, townhouses, and condominiums. The development within the subject tract should not negatively impact the surrounding properties and should not harm the value of the nearby properties. Staff, using the City's Zoning Map and Land Use Plan as a guide, finds this area preserved and developed as residential neighborhood. The current land use and development pattern also conforms to the proposed use. To minimize any conflict among individual developments, the area is suitable for mid density residential classification. Creating a small, Mid Density Residential (R 2) zone at this location would not run contrary to the intents of the Plan and could well complement the viability of the remaining undeveloped Planned Unit Development (P.U.D) zone (Exhibit B). Conclusion: By virtue of location and underlying land use designation, the request satisfies the criteria established for R 2 zoning. Granting the requested zone change would not be contrary to the goals and intents of City's Comprehensive Plan. r, Xn. .. ^=�-t .«.f `�r. - `Li: :: r •t. x.... �x, "�.-:Kjog {,iq •� �i :.�- -,� '"� a. 's, - �,� __ ...t is ,� 'F ��_ •-�.. E 'Y-,. r rM1�.. J7 It, fi ' TY, T Y—�-t—, H7. 14 or— - : z�"F: -� �2 :' x•.� �' as .f rfi x , yf1 e, t v �*e.. ee t y+� *t7La�yst. .. � - �riv. x.�•_ "� >�� � a.:µ+ y a• .... k a .77 z _ t t E-oFAIP WONT, PKWI' >r� 'y - at - lift ER A­ �• .r.:hcxs., _ es.r�, =sa# �; H&�• t. ¢& .: � '� �. - � - '. d► �'T r =z< r 'k.,. 3 � � - -s .a?, „ � - . _i g< , 5 ' � F :X 5ITE10CATION 1 _ ; may. - ax TURNINGBASIN xY :?'}•cil-F t"+r .i,�"`' -'.!'g t 4 a y , J ._ � _ .,. _ "fir ti •� - - .. .5� '•-M� r �,r:r» ���'e..r '� _ +`x�'Y,e, � r � fi� vim. >, ;r; i. .. '� `f`- z A. 1 T' "K # 3" c �... f'.s Sn S�..s u 3;`�•F"Ft'F -r c� 1 •-v `F s F , s :,= :� 5 d - C4?, .�;'93 r c a „�ryvty=��-- e �4s ,d.3 > �' k .- .,,�Y 3-m' .�' n• t. a ! 1 '�' .t. 4 Tj"�t ` , •3' {S ��• { 5 } 9"�'nyi � - _-i..:•5.,rys„ Ltd ,Yav f '£ �y/Z! 'r . - i x >� 4 g� � 3 0 0 f - ,• � . 5 .���- Y .fix ). "i- ._ a i• i if..'_e'rJ.�z i_ryt;ti i'�.e.4��6 �y�L.�a, ?, �. ig �, t: ': § ME� x� s ' t,� �� 0�•.,• a:S .'xte�� ��-` s 7'' '`m�� x Y ,� j '.�- a 7' t �' . ,me � � - 3^-� °^�y �r�.r�>•c.6'�.�c- t "3 f� '4_ +` s, r'''_�' � �' r + �� , Mud M- ww� rRopasEoAffz`z 3mm .. �.:'� - •"'-7.,�c. Y• Tom. �Y`-'- �� - Y -:{_ J � � tlec .�`.�` �: �'y-�Z �- - s' j' �. -�+ i ��`� �" t.. � _ '$`.a + f . +'� '"' t ts'. • ,� . .',y Z4 .� .-a _ � 'i3' � � '-a.5 '� z' '. �^: ~a .5 � � � �.� a.f �i c sITT tl- � s � Yt. Ns[ c�e^ '-R'.s �,, t _ i"� �4 � •xpr .. ♦.` �`S.K � .:, .' 4Y � �.r 9 : x F =is _ A +S 4p a i• ` YL F � 7 FX 3.:.t t : rt f „S:''i. �' ', �iaF 7 � k _ z�; y" c,.>� ,,�; _;»[�, a � r•_ y, a:..' � ' � -mot +� _ .:�:` tl a _n",. £•:fE H, ,2 a � �' �:-'� ts..` ' �' s �' � f.Y a s � �3 .� rt. '\ .. 4? - � � t'° ,� �. } iF.Y"> �.,,s•»Ma :'y+-y j t ,: r _ :+E ,�. _ t•� = 1. 'e ,r ::V ;r.'b.i u�:,,. _ r .tit._ m 1� �, f .r wa" c- i ) .u. • ., f �§ N 3 �l �. �` :< a. � ., •,� ,::y'� - g.. �... F N t. �+ 4J s_ � ��' �� fiL { „�r�. yJ �,. ;6x: :f'� ,'-"q. ,�fi $ .�^ ..'Nxi,�"�". �t -rs -`� x.i�y K{s. `a' .-�s-�• 1 =r � ;r�'F"'-Sv.:.-„3 ter•-�'-r:�^r �-. _ - l�'�^�"�...;�. :;�`•.___., - 1�b'�+W� '•fa'ie�^.S'�y`�•�)a`� �'Yi�'L.•_'#5..5.. � _ ���t3��,�4 f-��"A/.V �a� RT'S��i ��y �V _ Y'.LY"7 �.._- � __ _ - .:i L" v. t. y :` r.�t,A¢ '3i �rs',�� .c„ ,u�} -} �• a rY*sz 3�''�4�` Y t � �'�'Nt z .ter+ � � , _ -S. t �.:{"• '�� � �, r.rJ ; & , 3 a� g'f # .. tom' �� i -- r,"'.'..^ v2i.- -,r 2• '�"'yZ.. .1n 'Z.F.i+' A A :;e {,�.1 in.Y.. �:"S� � .�.. .5" C�- �. � - �5 E'1' :�"f: "f�::.i� ,3•, 1 ' ';� ^+�' r -�>i ,.:,, aS, �:r p.� � ,'m .r,.z-+'..�y`'e.�Pa �`:,•'.. :a-�ri`"�' _ 4$, '. �:.�.p,. iT�.f ;!. '{�'e' + -r{. -�' # � � _ , .. `. .. �.. " s _�, x _,.;'S .._v �.S �. �,ymw'z''�`.r y.>'�`� ::��3k ;_Y'T.; �'. m:' .�#��s �3?P. �a' n j,:�, z=,� 't -.�.� ror. '-1• ` X�:�eR 4 �.,. !- ix-§ t - tsr• ..,�" ��''-E •� �%'-:- :�j�'•s: s+d+.t.}�j; .ii.W"�71,� '�Zt +i:,�k� S -r may: 1 �,t 1. 7✓�, y.x,. � a` - s • PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT (SHIPPING CONTAINERS) • Staff Report Shipping Containers December 16,1999 Proposed Ordinance Amendments Background: Since 1992, the amount of containerized cargo handled by the Port of Houston Authority has doubled. The Port of Houston's Barbours Cut container terminal handles eighty percent of all containerized cargo moving through Texas ports and more than half of the containers crossing the Gulf of Mexico. The City of La Porte, being in close proximity to the Barbours Cut terminal, is experiencing tremendous pressure for the development of container yards. The City Council has directed staff to assess existing development conditions and future development strategies related to the outside storage of shipping containers. Currently, outside storage of shipping containers are permitted in Light Industrial (LI) zones with conditions such as; screening, lighting & glare, smoke, dust, or odor etc. Whereas, it is allowed in Heavy Industrial (HI) zones as per requirements of Section 106-522 of the Code of Ordinances (Table B). Uses Minimum Maximum Lot Minimum Yard Maximum Landscaping Coverage Setback& Height Li 6% 70% 2040-10 45 ft. HI 6% 30% . 50-50-30 45 ft. Shipping containers are allowed as accessory buildings, but must be screened from public view. The required screening consists of planting a strip four feet wide with evergreen plantings, a minimum of four feet high at the time of planting, such that, within two years of normal growth, a solid screen will be formed to a height of at least six feet. In order to enhance the visual appearance of La Porte and the potential for development along major thoroughfares and in nonresidential areas, Staff is proposing the following amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The amendments to the Zoning Ordinance were further studied to ensure their compatibility with the Land Use Plan and beautification element of the draft Comprehensive Plan. The Plan provides guidance to maintain a high standard of livability, economic vitality, and environmental quality, which together comprise the quality of life for the residents of La Porte. Analysis: The amendments presently being proposed lead to three options; First, completely eliminate an outside storage of shipping containers from the City of LaPorte. Second, to be permitted only in Heavy Industrial (HI) zones, and third, to update references to the Code of Ordinances relating to the shipping containers. • 0 Shipping Containers P&Z 12/16/99 Page 2 of 2 An outside storage of shipping containers use (SIC Code #3443) could be completely eliminated from the City's Code of Ordinances. As the establishment of these container yards is not attractive to the physical development of La Porte. Furthermore, they do not enhance the visual aesthetic character of the community. On the other hand, the Port of Houston Authority has developed a master plan for a new fully intermodal terminal at Bayport. A bond election was held in November, 1999 and 380 million dollars were approved in order to complete phase one of the Bayport expansion. This phase will complete 2600 feet of berth, 140 acres of container yard, equipment, utilities, access improvements, a gate complex, a container freight station and numerous other buildings. With these facilities in sight, staff feels the development of container yards could be prohibited in the City of La Porte. A second option that needs to be addressed deals with a zoning designation. At present, outside storage of shipping containers are permitted in the Light Industrial (LI) zones, subject to measures such as screening to a height of six feet, lighting & glare, smoke, dust, and odor. The containers could be limited to heavy industrial (Hp zones with minimum yard setbacks as front 50 ft., rear 50ft., and side 30 ft., along with required 6% landscaping, which is already a part of City's Code of Ordinances. A third option to be examined is the standards and additional requirements for LI zones in which the containers are permitted at present, as regulated by Sections 106-521& 522 (b) of the Code of Ordinances. These standards include regulations regarding height, setbacks, and landscaping & screening The following recommendations could apply to the outside storage of shipping containers in LI and HI zones, with a height limitation for containers to be two (2) stacks high, a typically 7'9" plus the frame would be 16%18'high. At present, the maximum height allowed is 45 ft. or 2-5 stacks high. The minimum front yard setback could be 50', whereas rear and side setbacks would be 50' and 40' respectively. Whereas, required landscaping a minimum of 10% shall be located in the front and side yards. This is an increase from the present minimum 6% landscaping requirements. Landscaping and screening shall be required for aesthetic impact of the area and to screen it from public view (See Exhibits). Minimum height of plants and trees at the time of planting would be 10-12 ft. with a minimum of 20 ft. apart. A height of sixteen to eighteen feet could be realized in about 2-5 years. A solid fence 6 ft. high would be another alternative for screening with required landscaping in place on property. A suitable surface to control dust and drainage would be either asphalt or concrete. Conclusion: The above mentioned standards, in stars opinion, are reasonable and workable. ff, there are other options for addressing this issue, staff would welcome input and suggestions from the Commission.