Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 1997-01-16 Regularl A Regular Meeting Of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 1997 A regular meeting of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, January 16, 1997, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 910 S. Friendswood Drive, Friendswood, Texas. The following members were present: Baker -Chair Finger Cress Burke Grace Clark Cox -City Manager Henry -Development Coordinator Brinkman -Secretary Collins -Civil Technologist C.Claunch -Consulting Engineer B.Grave -Consulting Engineer Lowe -Council Liaison With a quorum present, Whittenburg absent, the meeting was opened to give consideration to the following: WORKSHOP -6:00 p.m.: Also in attendance were A. Lentz & J. Thompson -Engineering Consultants for CCDD, R. Rogers & D. Kocurek representing the CCDD. 1.Discussion regarding an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance -Drainage criteria for the proposed Single Family Residential Estate Dwelling District (SFR-E). Commissioner Cress explained the proposed Single Family Residential Estate Dwelling District (SFR-E) to members of the Clear Creek Drainage District. Discussion centered on detention requirements in roadside ditches. David Kocurek, Superintendent for CCDD, suggested the use of swales on three sides of the lot. Detention requirements for roadside ditches would be less the amount of water contained in swales. Without curb and gutter, there would have to be at least 3' of shoulder to maintain the integrity of the roadway. Lentz agreed, adding that it was difficult to maintain water in ditches for any length of time without endangering the integrity of the street. It was determined that roadside ditch detention might not be a good idea. Reducing the coefficient is the easiest way to reduce engineering costs. As the lot size is increased, the coefficient goes down; likewise, any coverage of the surface increases the runoff. Discussion followed regarding the use of pipe with metering devices. The Commission asked Mac Collins, Civil Technologist for the City, to provide them with costs of a 2' stabilized shoulder as opposed to concrete. DOCKETED PUBLIC HEARING -6:30 p.m.: 1.For the purpose of receiving public input, either oral or written regarding the proposed replat of 1.1544 acres of land and being Recreational Reserve B, Block 2 of Regency Estates Subdivision, to remove the wording "Recreational" from "Recreational Reserve B". The joint public hearing was opened and Mr. Stapp addressed the Commission regarding the proposed replat. Mr. Stapp purchased the property from the City in 1993 and has now decided to build a home on the property. The property is zoned Single Family Residential (SFR) and the City has agreed to issue a building permit for the home. The Stapp's have applied to three different title companies who have refused to issue a title policy because the property is shown on the plat as a "recreational reserve." Consequently, the Stapps are not able to arrange financing. The home will be a 2,400 square foot, single storied structure having a three car garage. The home will be 80% brick and valued at over $200,000. The banker, builder, title company and the City Building Department are ready to proceed if this issue can be resolved. [ ' -. P&Z 1/16/97 Page 2 Dr. Jones spoke in favor of the replat. He said at the time the property was platted, the builder didn't think a home could be constructed on the subject property because there were problems with the sewer. This tract is known as Recreational Reserve B, the hangar is located on Recreational Reserve A and the nursing home is being constructed on the commercial reserve. Leanna Bridget, First Vice-President of the Board of Directors of Regency Estates Homeowners Association, read her comments into the minutes of the meeting. Petitions, containing approximately 75 signatures, were presented in opposition to the proposed replat as was a letter from Dr. Jean Wren. Eleven other persons spoke in opposition. Their opposition was based primarily on the fact that the tract would not fall under the auspices of the subdivision deed restrictions. The citizens were concerned that the zone classification of the property might be changed to a commercial zone and additionally, there would be a lack of control regarding appearance, debris, old cars, etc. at the entrance to their subdivision. City Attorney Todd Stewart explained that the deed restrictions were a private contract between the people in the subdivision and the City could not enforce deed restrictions. This tract, being a recreation reserve, was exempted from the deed restrictions by the developer of the property. The removal of the term "recreational" would allow Mr. Stapp to receive financing. According to 212.014 of the local government code, the replat can be approved without vacating the plat if it meets certain criteria. Mr. Stapp has presented staff with documentation that indicates the criteria has been satisfied. Reference was made to the legal protest of 20% of the people within 200' of the subject property. The Local Government Code states that "if the proposed replat requires a variance and is protested in accordance with this subsection, the proposed replat must receive, in order to be approved, the affirmative vote of at least three­ fourths of the members present of the municipal planning commission." The replat does not require a variance; therefore, the 20% rule would not apply. Additional questions arose regarding the time allotted to the planning and zoning commission to make a decision regarding this issue. The homeowner's stated their annual dues was $10.84 and requested Mr. Stapp to consider joining the homeowner's association. Others stated that when they purchased their homes, they were told that the property would become a part of the subdivision as a single family lot, if it ceased to be a recreational reserve. It was their impression that the lot would then be incorporated into the homeowner's association and would have to comply with the subdivision deed restrictions. The homeowners were not in opposition to the property being used as single family residential, only that it would not fall under the restrictions of the subdivision. The public hearing was closed and Chair Baker said the subject would be considered later in the meeting. NEW BUSINESS -7:00 p.m.: 1.Minutes for approval -December 19, 1996; January 2, 1997 & January 6, 1997 -all approved as corrected. 2.Communications from the Public -none. OLD BUSINESS: 1.Tabled items: A Consideration and possible recommendation to City Council regarding the Final Site Plan of Allstate Insurance Company -Forest Bend. Motion: Second: Vote For: Finger -to remove from the table. Cress Unanimous Motion carried. I I I l P&Z 1/16/97 Page 3 Discussion: This item has been on the agenda since June 20, 1996. Staff is still waiting for a final site plan that meets the criteria of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Bazzy was advised by letter that action would be taken on this item; however, staff has not received a response. Motion: Second: Vote For: Clark -to deny the request. Finger -second Unanimous Motion Carried B.Consideration and possible recommendation to the City Council regarding the request for a Specific Use Permit for the development of a proposed apartment complex within the proposed Planned Unit Development District (PUD) described as 8.1064 acres out of Annalea, Whitehall Subdivision - property located at FM 518 & Chelsea Lane. Motion: Second: Vote For: Finger -to remove from the table. Cress Unanimous Motion carried. The property was approved for a zone classification change to PUD; however, the request for a Specific Use Permit and an approved site plan must accompany the zone change request. Commissioner Cress addressed several of the concerns that were presented at the public hearing: Increased Traffic -The property is currently zoned CSC and it is unlikely the traffic flow would be more than that which is generated by a CSC development. If the project is approved, it will need two points of ingress/egress. The two side entrances could be for emergency use only. Lighting could be restructured and lighting could be eliminated from the basketball court. Noise could be controlled with a larger or higher buffer. Overall, the noise level for an apartment complex would be comparable to that of a shopping center. The Crime report produced by the police department indicated that it was not a major problem in the Huntington Woods complex, although the statistics cannot be projected for 10-20 years in the future. The privacy issue is a valid concern. Mr Cress commented that with an adequate set of plans, profiles and elevations the line of site could be indicated and the commission could effectively address the issue. The people who live behind the Huntington Woods apartments, said privacy was not an issue because of the design layout of the buildings. Taxes -The data presented by staff indicated 28 school age children at the Huntington Woods Apartments and the school taxes collected equalled $1,494 per child. In this instance a CSC zone would be more equitable because it would generate revenue for the City and for the school district without the cost of educating a child. The apartment could possibly have a negative impact with regard to the number of school children and tax dollars produced. The issue of lowering property values is another that cannot be properly addressed, nor can it be projected for 20 years from now. The City recently passed an ordinance restricting multi-family density to 12 units per acre and Mr. Cress stated the developer had not presented reasons to allow the higher density. The proposed Comprehensive Plan projected this location to be MFR-M which is 9 units per acre and he would be hesitant to deviate from the proposed plan. Commissioner Burke agreed that the lighting could be redesigned and port lights, that were shielded, could be used. Burke stated that in the public hearing Mr. Hausman said the closest building was to be approximately 80' from the abutting back yards; however, when Burke scaled the site plan, there appeared to be 68' not 80' as projected. He also commented that the developer would be required to plant 80 trees by ordinance. The developer might be encouraged to use denser vegetation such as bamboo for the landscape buffer. P&Z 1/16/97 Page4 Burke advised Mr. Hausman that if a detention site is to be located in the City of Pearland, he should address the issue with the City of Pearland. Burke reiterated Cress' comments regarding traffic, ingress and egress, and sales tax. With regard to rental property not being maintained, he reminded that Mr. Hausman is the owner of the property and it is to Hausman's benefit to see that the complex is maintained or it will not attract potential renters. Regarding property values, Burke stated that he didn't feel the apartment complex would have any more impact than if the property remained CSC because the Commission would have no control in a CSC zone and there might be a line of metal buildings. Burke added that in all fairness, he would not feel comfortable asking Mr. Hausman to reduce the number of units per acres because the density had not been an issue until recently. Commissioner Grace said that the proposed rent was as much, if not more, than many of the homes in Friendswood. With the proposed rent schedule, Grace said he didn't think there would be as many children in the school district as projected and he thought the complex would carry its own weight with regard to school taxes. Grace added that he had called the central appraisal district and spoke with Jerry Odom. Odom stated that the effect on property values would depend on the type of development that was constructed on this site; however, when asked about an apartment project like Huntington Woods, Odom said there would not be a negative impact. With regard to the close proximity to SFR, Grace said that the people in Quaker's Landing did not want the Huntington Woods Apartments but did not seem to have any problems with it once it was constructed. The Police calls to the Huntington Woods Apartments is very small in number and Mr. Grace said he could vote for it. Commissioner Finger commented the data behind the proposed Comprehensive Plan indicated that the City has more commercial land zoned than a typical city of its size and there should be a reduction in the CSC to a more reasonable level. He too, would feel uncomfortable changing the density level at this time. Finger added that he was not prepared to vote, either for it or against it. Commissioner Clark said the residents had asked for a traffic signal on Chelsea and FM 518. If the exit onto Chelsea were an exit only, there would be a greater need for a traffic light and the State might grant the request. Chair Baker added that at the public hearing for Huntington Woods, the people in Quaker's Landing protested using the same defense -lower property values, more traffic, etc. Baker called the residents of the community and 9 of the 10 people questioned considered the complex an asset. Baker said he would be in favor of the apartment over other enterprises that would be permitted in a CSC zone. The Commission agreed there was still some items that should be worked out and recommended a workshop with Mr. Hausman and his architect to define the view of the commission. It was suggested that representatives from Pearland might be invited to attend. Hausman commented there had been some discussion about the drainage going to Mary's Creek thru Pearland, but if necessary, the water could flow into Mary's Creek thru the Friendswood storm sewer system. Burke commented that it was not the job of the Commission to develop a site plan. City Attorney Stewart reminded the Commission that the public hearing had been closed and they could not receive further comment on the development. Questions arose regarding the Commission's recommendation to change this from CSC to PUD. Stewart reviewed the history of the development to date. The zone change was advertised as CSC to MFR-H. There was a lot of concern as to what would eventually be constructed on the site and in an effort to offer assurance, the developer changed his requested classification to PUD. A PUD, which requires a specific use permit, allows the micro-management of the site by the [ I P&Z 1/16/97 Page 5 Commission. In order to be legal, the recommendation must be accompanied by the request for a specific use permit and an approved site plan. Motion: Second: Vote For: Finger -to table Burke Unanimous Motion Carried C.Consideration and possible recommendation to City Council regarding an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance No. 85-19, Single Family Residential Estate Dwelling District (SFR-E). -no further comment at this time. NEW BUSINESS: 1.Pre-app -Pecan Subdivision -FM 2351 & Pecan -Currently zoned SFR. The developer did not show and this item was passed over. 2.Pre-app -Dunn Subdivision -Polly Ranch. 3. Paige Hebert addressed the commission on behalf of Ms. Dunn. This item has been in the court system for four years and the subdivision of the property has been upheld by the court. The tract of land is 1.89 acres and will be subdivided into two sections. After the subdivision of the property, each piece will be larger than 75% of the lots in the subdivision. The Commission had no problems with the pre-app. Consideration and possible action regarding the Final Plat of Gruber Estates -1.929 acres out of Block C of Central Park subdivision -Falling Leaf Drive. This property had been sold on metes and bounds. There have been no physical changes but a building permit cannot be issued until the property is legally subdivided. Regarding drainage, there will be drainage swales on each side of the property. Motion: Second: Vote For: Finger -to approve Clark Unanimous Motion Carried 4.Consideration and possible action regarding the final plat of Boca Raton, Section Ill. There are some items to be addressed and final approval cannot be given at this time. Motion: Finger -to table Second: Cress Vote for: Unanimous Motion Carried 5.Consideration and possible action regarding the proposed replat of 1.1544 acres of land and being Recreational Reserve B, Block 2 of Regency Estates Subdivision, to remove the wording "Recreational" from "Recreational Reserve B". City Attorney Stewart stated that the proposed replat may be recorded and is controlling over the preceding plat without vacation of that plat if the replat met the three requirements in the Local Government Code, Section 212.014. The Commission reviewed the attorney's earlier comments. The property will remain part of Regency Estates but not under the deed restrictions of the subdivision which are private contracts between homeowners. l I P&Z 1/16/97 Page 6 The Commission did not feel there was any evidence of a change to the restrictions nor is the City changing the covenant application, should the replat be allowed. The applicant's attorney also issued a letter stating that the replat does not, in his opinion, defy the covenants and restrictions. Commissioner Burke commended one of the citizens who welcomed the Stapps to the community and Commissioner Clark stated that he didn't think anyone was really opposed. Both expressed their desire that the Stapps and the homeowner's association would work out the issue of subdivision restrictions. Motion: Second: Vote For: Cress -to approve the replat Clark Unanimous Motion carried 6.Consideration and possible action regarding the policy on tabled items. 7. Chair Baker read the policy and Commissioner Finger explained that the policy will become part of the package that staff gives the developer. Motion: Second: Burke -to accept the policy Finger Vote For: Unanimous Motion carried COMMU NICATIONS FROM: A STAFF -There is a joint public hearing on Monday, January 20, 1997 for the Single Family Residential Estate Subdivision. Agenda packets were handed out. There will also be a workshop on February 10th with City Council regarding the maintenance on detention ponds. City Manager Ron Cox, in response to the Commission's request for additional research on Mustang Road, said the Public Works Department took about 9 different core samples from the site.. The samples, that were taken closest to the paved portion of the road, contained some base material. This is probably where the contractor stored his materials for the road construction as the material does not extend beyond that point. A written report has not been submitted but will be supplied to the commission when it is available. Tonight, and at the end of the last public hearing, it was asked of the Commission, "What do we do now?" Mr. Cox has asked staff to generate a fact sheet or a time line that will tell where the developer is in the process and what is next on the agenda. The concerns of the citizens regarding the development at Chelsea and FM 518 were answered by the Commission at this meeting; however, Councilmember Lowe indicated that she would like to answer the concerns in the public hearing. Questions arose about the manner in which the City acquired the recreational reserve from Regency Estates and how the City arranged the sale of the property. Cox stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Parks Board meeting in 1991 in which Karen Elza reported that Regency Estates Homeowner's Association was not interested in the recreational reserve. It was believed that Ms. Elza was a member of the Parks Board at the time; however, there is some confusion about that fact. Ms. Bridgett seems to think that Ms. Elza was just a homeowner. P&Z 1/16/97 Page 7 B.COUNCIL LIAISON -The Clear Creek Regional Committee is an umbrella organization over 4 counties. This Committee is a master district which is to address the regional plan and come up with an overall solution. Even if the voters do not vote to give the district any funding, the district can be empowered to do the coordination and approval of all plans that are affected by city or district boundary lines. There are three items that have been requested of legislatures as housekeeping issues; to extend the election date for another two years, to clarify some language that is confusing, and a to produce a correct metes and bounds description. To further complicate the matter, the Clear Creek Drainage District has forwarded 18 amendments to the elected officials they (CCDD) would like to see incorporated. The meetings for the Regional Committee are open to the public and are held on the 3rd Wednesday of the month at 5:00 in Pearland's City Hall. The meeting is followed by the steering committee meeting at 7:00. C.COMMISSIONERS -none