Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 2002-02-07 RegularI I l Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Friendswo od Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 2002 A regular meeting of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission was held Thursday, February 7, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the city hall council chambers located at 910 S.Friendswood Drive, F1iendswood, Texas. The following members were present: Niels Aalund Bob Bertrand Frank Frankovich Tom Samson Mike Hodge -Director PW and CD Mike Dominguez-City Planner Diana Steelquist -CD Coordinator Dan Johnson -Deputy Director CD Mel Measeles -Council Liaison With a quorum present, Burke, Clark and Mc Veigh absent, Commissioner Bertrand called the meeting to order to consider the following: Call to order: Public hearing: 1.To receive public input, either oral or written, r�garding the following: A.Requesting the final plat of Autumn Creek Commercial Tract "One 11 Reserve11D311 replat, a subdivision of 4.2626 acres being a replat of reshicted reserve11D311 of Autumn Creek Commercial Tract 11 One11 , Reserves "B" & 11 D 11 replat, Harris County , Texas. No representative was available at the time of the start of the hearing so the next item was heard. B.Requesting the final plat Rancho Viejo Replat of Lot 11, 7.8564 acres being all of Lot 11, Rancho Viejo, Vol. 15, Page 92, Galveston County Map Records, Galveston County , Texas. Janice Lowe addressed the Commission as agent for the applicants, the Manley's. · The tract is 7.85 acres with an existing house. They propose subdividing the tract into two additional lots. The applicants have reviewed the deed reshictions and found no restriction that would not allow them to replat in Section One of Rancho Viejo. There is a restriction on the subdivision of any tracts in Section Two. The applicant's tract is located in Section One. -Mr. James Manley, 302 E. Viejo, the landowner, spoke in favor of the request. _He stated the demographics in Friendswood had changed. It is no longer a rnral area where larger tracts are needed to raise horses or cows. This tract .has been for sale for over a year and he is having difficulty genera ting interest in such a large lot. According to Mr. Manley, the replatting would help to - 1 - 02/07 /02 P &Z 'I revitalize an aging subdivision. The contractor who proposes to purchase these lots is planning to build two large expensive homes which will increase the tax oase for the city and benefit the neighborhood. He also stated that this· request was in compliance with all state and local laws. In opposition: Mr. Jim Benton, 303 E. Viejo, stated he lived across the street and was not sure if he wanted the front of his home to face a $700,000 house. He questioned the impact on the quality of !if� in the neighborhood should the replat be permitted. Mr. John Ring, 202 E. Viejo, stated he had moved to the area for the larger lot sizes. According to him, deed restrictions limit lots to one house per lot. Replatting would destroy uniqueness of the subdivision. He suggested the Manley's have the deed restrictions. amended to allow the replat. He is also concerned that the replat will set a precedent throughout the city to promote the subdividing of large lots. He would like the integiity and character of the neighborhood maintained. Mr. Ring presented a letter dated 2-6-02 stating his request for denial. Mr. Bill Leverich, 204 E. Viejo, has been a reside�t for 23 years and likes the low density of the neighborhood. He stated the majority of the area homeowners were against the replat. Mr. Bob DeLuca, 203 E. Viejo, stated he was one of the original drafters of the HOA documents for the subdivision. He believes the Manely's may have title issues with the replat request. He also believed allowing the replat would set precedent for other lots in the neighborhood to replat. He believes the current lot and house are marketable. Mr. Eddie Stanaland, 402 Rancho Circle, was opposed to replat. Purchased in area because of large lot sizes and quality of life. JoAnn Brewley, 105 E. Viejo Dr. is new to neighborhood but purchased in area because of large lot sizes. She stated that she was opposed to the replat. Edward Perkowski, 404 Rancho Circle, likes the Manleys and thinks they are good people. He wants to keep neighborhood intact and thinks the Manley's would also oppose a replat if they were staying in the neighborhood. Kay Vic, 304 E. Viejo, is concerned about drainage. Believes additional development on the Manely's lot will cause water to flow onto her property. She does not want the replat approved in order to protect current homes from future drainage problems. - 2 - 02/07 /02 P &Z ' I I Sally Stapleton, 512 Williamsburg Circle, owns prope1ty with a similar layout to that oflot 11. Ms. Stapleton stated that she likes the larger lots and country· living atmosphere of neighborhood. Eva Ring, 108 E. Viejo, told the Commission that she purchased her lot to live in a home that has a lot of acreage that would give her more privacy. She was opposed to replat. Edwin Lamm, representing A. Albu the owner of Lot 9,. Mr. Lamm presented four letters of written protest from homeowners repres.enting 30.21 acres of the surrounding homesites that are opposing the replat. He also stated his concerns about the quality of life, the need to preserve the rural setting of the neigh�orhood, concerns about increased traffic. Commissioner Bertrand asked Ms. Lowe about the drainage concerns and the plan for the lots. Ms. Lowe stated that the replat had been approved by GCCDD and expected drainage to improve with the development of the two new homes in the area. The two additional home sites will be located outside the flood plain .. The new lots will also each front on a separate stree,t and be sold as single family lots. The use is compatible with other lots in the neighborhood. Mr. Perkowski stated he believed two additional homes would create drainage problems. C.Requesting the final plat of Whispering Pines Estates, 8.634 acres being a replat of Lots 1 thru 14 and out of Lot 15, Block 21 and of Lots 1 thru 3 and out of Lot 4, Block 22 of Wilderness Trails subdivision, Galveston County, Texas. Mr. Tom Offenburger, representing Barney Roberts, addressed the Commission. This is a 8.634 acre area originally platted as a portion of Wilderness Trails Subdivision. The number of lot is being reduced from the original 16 lots to 6 lots. The area is zoned Single Family Residential. The plat has been approved by GCCDD. Constructions plans have also been submitted to the City for approval. · The developer will build a paved road from the end of Falling Leaf to the entrance of the new subdivision. Commissioner Frankovich inquired about the street names shown on the plat. The deputy director of Community Development explained that the City Attorney was researching the street sometimes known as Baker Rd. or City Rd. Mr. Ron Dyer, 1409 Falling Leaf, inquired if the primary access would be from Falling Leaf. He was concerned that the subdivision would be increasing area density, however, after reviewing the plat arid statements from the developer, he had no opposition. - 3 - 02/07 /02 P &Z At this time the public hearing on the Autumn Creek Commercial Tract "One" Reserve "D3 11 replat was heard. · Mr. George Weatherall, representing the property owners, addressed the Commission. The area to· be replatted is in the Autumn Creek shopping center. The replat is to finance the property for development. The shopping center is being developed in phases. No comments either for or agai nst were made. 2.Close public hearing With no further comments, the public heaiing was closed. Regular Items: 3.Consideration and possible action regarding a request for Specific Use Permit - Church for property located at 2801 West Parkwood Avenue (Ftiendswood Community Church), 56.883 acres of land, zoned Single Family Residential (SFR), Galveston County, Texas. Motion: Second: Amended Motion: Second: Vote: Aalund -to recommend approval Samson Aalund -to recommend approval conti ngent upon site drainage plan approval from Galveston County Consolidated Drainage District Samson Unanimous Motion Carried Mr. Paul Keith, representi ng Friendswood Community Church, addressed the Commission. This is a 25 year master plan for the Church. There is one piece of property shown on the plan that will be acquired at a later date. Commissioner Frankovich inquired about the water features on the site plan. Mr. Keith stated the water features will be a part of the detention for the site. Com missioner Frankovich expressed concern that future site development may cause problems with the· drainage plan. Mr. David Sepulvada, project engineer, stated that currently Phase One of the master plan had fully planned detention and drainage facilities. The future phases will require additional storage and may necessitate the relocation or enlargement of some of the water features/detention areas. Commissioner Frankovich stated that there was serious drainage probl ems in the area and was concerned about the development's impact on adjacent properties. Mr. Sepulvada stated that the majority of the site will drain thru the middle of the site. Also that the ponds had been designed for a 50% greater capacity than was required. Staff is aware of the sensitive drainage issues in the area but the plan - 4 - 02/07 /02 P &Z I has met the City's drainage criteria. Stricter requirements cannot be applied unless they are written in the design criteiia. Staff suggested a conditional approval of the SUP-based on GCCDD approval of the site plan. Commissioner Bertrand suggested that the Design Criteiia Manual be revisited. Commissioner Frankovich suggested using FEMA's criteiia. 4.Communications from the public. Rev. George Lupo, 1400 Lundy Lane, addressed the Commission regarding flooding and drainage problems on Lundy Lane. He also wanted to know why there is not a better notification system to the public regarding new development. Commissioner Bertrand suggested Mr. Lupo attend the Drainage District's meeting on the 12th where the Community Church development on Lunday Lane would be considered. With the consensus of all the Commission members, Commissioner Be1trand changed the order of the agenda to consider the consent agenda. Item C. was pulled from the consent agenda for separate consideration. 5.Consent Agenda: 7. C.approval of the final plat Rancho Viejo Rep lat of Lot 11. Motion: Aalund -to recommend approval Second: Samson Vote For: Aalund, Bertrand Vote Against: Frankovich, Samson Motion Fails Ms. Lowe addressed the Commission stating that the 1968 deed restrictions state one home improvement per lot but it does not preclude a replat of a lot. She also stated the restrictions had expired for Section One of Rancho Viejo. The City Planner reviewed the Section One HOA documents and found them to be self perpetuating every ten years and still to be in effect. However, they do not exclude a replat. Ms. Lowe stated the replat had met City requirements and maintains building lines of the original plat as well as proposed lots being separated by substantial vegetation. She also stated that property rights exist for the Manely's to replat and they were within their legal rights to make the request. Commissioner Bertrand cautioned the applicant that they would need to wait 90 days if the replat was not approved and asked if they wanted to change the status of their application. Ms. Lowe declined. Commissioner Bertrand also stated that the City does not enforce deed restrictions and responded to earlier comments about precedent by stating that other existing subdivisions had been replatted in the City. Ms. Lowe stated that that the Drainage District also has approved the - 5 - 02/07 /02 P &Z I i f, I• replat, even though the residents may not be in agreement. The current zoning is SFR and a total of three houses would be accepta ble on the three replatted lots. Commissioner Frankovich state d that although other replats had been granted they had never had adjacent neighbors come in to protest the replat. It will set a precedent for this particular neighborhood to approve the replat. Commissioner Aalund asked for clarification on whether the applicant wanted to withdraw the application. The acting chair stated that no request had been made nor had a motion to table been called for. He therefore called for the vote. The vote was two for and two against which equated to a failure of the motion. At this time the remainder of the consen t agenda was considered. A.approval of O 1-17-02 regular meeting minutes. B.approval of the final plat of Autumn Creek Commercial Tract "One" Reserve "D3" replat. D.approval of the final plat the L. Christoph Subdivision. E.approval of the final plat of the Lake at San Joaquin. Motion: Second: Vote For: Frankovich -to recommend approval Samson Unanimous Motion Carried 6.Discussion regarding the relationship between the Park Dedication Ordinance and drainage and recr eational reserves. Commissioner Bertrand noted that at the last meeting during a discussion on landscaping the issue of park credits came up. A concern was expressed that there may be a disconnect between the Drainage District and the City for areas which may be getting park dedication credit when in actuality these areas could not be used for anything other than drainage reserves. The Director of Public Works and Co mmunity Devel opment (PW-CDD), Mike Hodge, addressed the Commission and referenced the memo prepared by Jon Branson -Director of Community Services wherein it was noted that in order for a developer to receive park credits, the minimum park amenities had to be provided first. No credit was being given for land only. The Drainage District is aware of our Park Ordinance and staff has discussed this ordinance and the cluster home amendment the use of drainage areas for open space requirements. The main issue with the Drainage District in using reserves for parks or open space is access for maintenance of these areas. The agreement with developers to have recreation/drainage reserves is that the developer or HOA maintains that area so long as maintenance does not interfere with detention functions. The City and Drainage District do have the right to re-work the area if it is not performing the drainage function. Commissioner Bertrand would like to see more detail on a plat regarding the uses allowed on a recreational reserve. He suggested they be categorized. with specific uses allowed in each category such as hike and bike trails, bird watching, etc. The Director of PW-CDD, was concerned with placing information on a plat -6 - 02/07 /02 P &Z l I 7. which may never come to fruition. The Director suggested that copies of any agreements between the City and developers which detail the park credits, if any, and identify1ng the reserves involved be provided to the Commission in!'ltead: Discussion and possible action regarding Appendix A, the Si gn Ordinance, and the allowance of off-premise signs for real estate sales, rental and leasing. The staff noted to the Commissioners that this item was on the agen da at the request of the City Council as a result of a workshop and incident with a property owner. The Council felt there was a need to allow off premise si gns on_ a limited basis. The City Planner provided a portion of the City Code which currently prohibits off premise signs for lease or rent signs outside the specific property. The workshop focused on allowing a for rent or for lease si gn off the property at a subdivision entrance or a street corner. Commissioner Aalund expressed concern that a change to allow the off premise signs would create more work for staff to track the individual sign locations and asked the question of if the si gn was moved 15 feet into a di fferent location, would the sign owner then get an additional time period to display the sign? Commissioner Frankovich stated that this City had a bytter appearance because of its sign ordinance than other communities in the county. This suggestion from Council seemed counter productive. The City Planner agreed that the signordinance sets us apaii from other communities and that the implementation of the change would create more work staff and add another layer of bureaucracy. Commissioner Bertrand suggested a memo be forwarded to the Council stating the reasons why they did not feel a change needed to be made to the signordinance. The City Planner stated he would prepare a memo stating that the current sign ordinance sets this city apart from other area communities; the proposed change would create more work for staff and add a layer of bureaucracy; the change could create additional visual clutter in the community; and that there were other more effective means for property owners to advertise homes for lease or rent such as newspapers and the internet. The memo will be forwarded to the acting chair and copies placed in the next regular meeting agenda books. 8.Adjournment A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 P .M. ��Diana Steelquist Development Coordinator -7 - 02/07 /02 P &Z