HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 1996-05-02 Regular!
!
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
FRIENDSWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2, 1996
A regular meeting of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, May 2, 1996 at
7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 910 S. Friendswood Drive, Friendswood, Texas. The
following members were present:
Baker -Chair
Cress
Clark
Burke
Whittenburg
Grace
Hoover -City Planner
Kneupper -City Engineer
Henry -Development Coordinator
Dickey -Liaison
With a quorum present, Finger absent, Chairman Baker opened the meeting to give consideration to the
following business:
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Baker opened the joint public hearing to receive input, either oral or written, regarding a proposed
amendment to the City of Friendswood Zoning Ordinance No. 84-15, to provide that buildings and structures
shall be limited to two and one-half stories and not to exceed 35 feet.
There were approximately 40 people in the Council Chambers. Ron Ritter spoke on behalf of the Wedgewood
Village Homeowner's Association and presented written comments regarding the proposed Quail Crossing
Apartment Project. Item 2 of the written comments (attached) addr essed the height restriction and are in favor
of the ordinance restricting height of buildings. Mayor Newman read a letter from William and Norma Hayes in
which they too were in favor of the ordinance which would restrict the building height to 2 1/2 stories.
Carl Horecky, coordinator of building programs for the Friends Church, spoke in opposition to the ordinance
stating that the Friends Church intended to build a multi-storied retirement center for senior citizens and this
limitation would thwart the project. Don Beeth also spoke in opposition to the ordinance and presented his
written comments regarding the subject. Approximately 10 people spoke both for and in opposition to the
ordinance. With no further comment, the public hearing was closed.
OLD BUSINESS:
1.TABLED ITEMS:
A CONSIDERATION WITH POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE FINAL PLAT
OF CEDARWOOD ESTATES (CORNER OF CASTLEWOOD AND FM 518).
Motion:
Second:
Vote For:
Whittenburg -to remove item from table
Clark
Unanimous Motion Carried
The square footage of lot three was incorrect and was corrected by James Thompson of Lentz
Engineering.
Motion:
Second:
Vote For:
Cress -to approve the final plat as corrected
Grace
Unanimous Motion Carried
B.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE TREE ORDINANCE.
Item remained on the Table.
l
P&Z
5/2/96
Page 2
NEW BUSINESS:
1.Communications from the Public
None
2.Consideration and possible action regarding the Final Replat of Reserve B of the Forest Bend
Subdivision, Section 1, located approximately at the corner of Townes Road and FM 528.
Motion:
Second:
Vote For:
Whittenburg -to Approve
Clark
Unanimous Motion Carried
3.Discussion regarding the proposed amendment to the City of Friendswood Zoning Ordinance
No. 84-15, to provide that buildings and structures shall be limited to two and one-half stories
and not to exceed 35 feet.
Commissioner Cress would like to send a recommendation to City Council to change the MFR
H to 12 units per acre and review the different zone classifications to determine which should be
restricted to 2 stories. Commissioner Clark suggested an amendment which would require a
sprinkler system for any building over two stories tall. Commissioner Burke commented that
neither the density or restricting the height of buildings will address the immediate issue of the
proposed apartment project. Burke suggested the City consult with the City attorney to
determine a resolution to the immediate issue. City Planner Hoover stated that the commission
might want to consider an amendment that would require a multi-family project to have a
specific use permit, which would allow more public input. With no further comment, the
commission moved to the next item on the agenda.
4.Minutes for Approval -April 18, 1996 -Approved as read.
5.Communications from:
6.
A.Staff(1)Large lot subdivision
B.commissioners
( 1)Discussion on road widths
It was the general consensus that narrow road widths should be allowed with
large lot subdivisions, particularly if there were only two or three lots involved.
2)Time limit for making a similar zone change request
City Planner Hoover stated that the City Attorney indicated a year was too
restrictive and recommended an 11 month window. The commission agreed to
the concept.
11 CC: M&C ,'J .O REC P&Z
WEDGEWOOD VILLAGE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION
CONCERNS REGARDING PROPOSED QUAIL CROSSING APARTMENT PROJECT
PRESENTED TO FRIENDSWOOD CITY COUNCIL AP�IL 29 1 1996
PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION: WEDGEWOOD VILLAGE FM 2351@ BLACKHAWK BEHIND VACANT FOOD LION
PROPOSED PROJECT:
PRESENTED BY: RON RITTER
15410 WANDERING TRAIL FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS
APPROXIMATELY 400 APARTMENTS ON 20 ACRE SITE
PHASE ONE = 196 UNITS IN 2 & 3 STORY HIGH RISE BUILDINGS
MAJOR CONCERNS OF FRIENDSWOOD RESIDENTS:
A)HIGH DENSITY OF PROJECTB)DRAINAGE CONCERNS
C)PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS
D)PARKING AND TRAFFIC CONTROL CONCERNSE)LEGAL ISSUES
F)INSUFFICIENCY OF EXISTING CITY ORDINANCES
OVERRIDING QUESTION: WHY WAS PROJECT ALLOWED TO PROCEED WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC NOTICE TO FRIENDSWOOD RESIDENTS?
A)HIGH DENSITY OF PROJECT
1)PHASE ONE OF THE PROJECT rs TO INCLUDE 196 UNITS ON AN
APPROXIMATELY ELEVEN (11) ACRE TRACT. THE STATED DENSITY IS
APPROXIMATELY 18 UNITS PER ACRE. HOWEVER, NOTE THAT 1/8 OF
THE TRACT IS A DETENTION POND FOR THE ENTIRE 20 ACRE TRACT AS WELL AS FOR THE ADJOINING BAYWOOD AND BRIDGESTONE APARTMENT PROJECTS. THEREFORE THE ACTUAL DENSITY OF THE
PROPOSED PROJECT IS IN EXCESS OF 20 UNITS PER ACRE AND
APPROACHING 20 1/2 UNITS PER ACRE. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE
DENSITY OF WEDGEWOOD VILLAGE IS APPROX. 5 RESIDENCES PER
ACRE.
2)THE PROJECT INCLUDES A NUMBER OF THREE STORY HIGH RISEBUILDINGS-IN FACT AS PRESENTED OVER 2/3rds OF THE UNITS (9 OF THE 13 APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN PHASE ONE) ARE 3 STORY
[ i
UNITS, WHICH WILL BE LOOMING OVER ADJACENT SINGLE STORY RESIDENCES, RESULTING IN: a)LACK OF PRIVACY OF ADJACENT RESIDENCES.b)AN AESTHETICALLY UNAPPEALING PROJECT TOWERING OVERTHE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS.c)A MINIMAL 30 FOO� BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN THE PROJECTAND WEDGEWOOD VILLAGE AND HERITAGE PARK HOMES.NOTE THE BUFFER IS LESS THAN THE DISTANCE FROM THEFRONT OF OUR HOMES TO THE CURB OF OUR STREETS.
3)THE HIGH DENSITY OF THE PROJECT (A POPULATION BASE OF
1,000 TO 1,100 RESIDENTS) WILL PLACE INCREASED DEMANDSON OUR ALREADY CROWDED SCHOOL SYSTEM.
4)INADEQUATE GREEN SPACE AND LACK OF RECREATIONAL AREASWILL PLACE GREATER DEMANDS ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PARKFACILITIES AND PLACE INCREASED PRESSURE ON OUR OVERCROWDED BALL FIELDS.
B)DRAINAGE CONCERNS
1)WHERE WILL STORM WATER RUNOFF GO? THE BLACKHAWK STORMWATER DRAIN SYSTEM IS INADEQUATE TO ACCOMMODATE ANY OFTHE PROPOSED HIGH DENSITY PROJECTS RUNOFF, PER OURPREVIOUS CITY ENGINEER MR. JIMMY THOMPSON. HE STATEDTHAT THE BLACKHAWK STORM DRAIN SYSTEM SIMPLY WAS NOTSIZED FOR THE ADDITIONAL STORMWATER RUNOFF LOAD.
2)WHO WILL MAINTAIN THE PROPOSED DETENTION FACILITYINCLUDING FUTURE SILTING UP PROBLEMS, AND WHO WILLBE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING THE STATUS OF THE POND?
3) OUR CITY STAFF STATES THAT THE HARRIS COUNTY FLOODCONTROL DISTRICT WILL HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY OFENSURING THE ADEQUACY OF THE DRAINAGE PLANS OF THEPROJECT. HOWEVER, PLEASE NOTE THAT WE HAVE A SEVEREFLOODING PROBLEM NOW AT FRIENDSWOOD LINK ROAD ATBLACKHAWK RESULTING FROM THE DRAINAGE DETENTIONPROJECT RECENTLY COMPLETED ACROSS FROM PH GREENEELEMENTARY SCHOOL WHICH THE HARRIS COUNTY FLOODCONTROL DISTRICT APPROVED. DO WE REALLY WANT TODELEGATE SUCH RESPONSIBILITY? I SHOULD HOPE NOT!AND PLEASE NOTE THAT SHOULD A SIMILAR STREET FLOODINGPROBLEM BE ALLOWED TO BE DUPLICATED ON THE NORTH ENDOF BLACKHAWK, THEN ESCAPE ROUTES AND EMERGENCY ACCESSTO FRIENDSWOOD CITIZENS IN THE ADJOINING NEIGHBORHOODSDURING SEVERE STORM CONDITIONS WILL BE EFFECTIVELY CUTOFF.
C)PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS
1)FIRE CONCERNS:
[ a)LIMITED ACCESS TO PROPOSED PROJECT-ONLY ONE WAY IN
AND SAME WAY OUT. PLEASE NOTE THAT A 911 CRASH GATE
AS REQUIRED AND AS NOTED ON THE SITE PLAN WILL NOT
IN REALITY EXIST AS THE PROJECT ACREAGE DOES NOT
INCLUDE ACCESS TO STREETS IN HERITAGE PARK. THE
HERITAGE PARK VILLAGE HOMEOWN ERS ASSOCIATION OWNS A
0.665 ACRE TRACT OF LAND WHICH RUNS THE ENTIRE
LENGTH OF THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE TRACT. MR
BOB BAGGETT, AN OFFICER OF THE HERITAGE PARK
VILLAGE HOMEOWNER 1 S ASSOCIATION WILL STATE FOR THE
RECORD THAT THEIR ASSOCIATION WILL NOT ALLOW ACCESS
TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ACROSS THE TRACT WHICH THEY
OWN. A COPY OF THEIR RECORDED SURVEY WILL BE
FURNISHED TO FRIENDSWOOD'S CITY MANAGER, MR RON
COX AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS EVENING'S MEETING.
b)LACK OF PROPER FIRE LANES -PLEASE NOTE THAT NONE
OF THE PROPOSED APARTMENTS PROVIDE FOR A DESIGNATED
FIRE LANE PROVIDING IMMEDIATE ACCESS BY EMERGENCY
PERSONNEL, THUS PLACING RESIDENTS AS WELL AS RESCUE
AND FIRE FIGHTERS AT RISK AS THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED
TO DRAG HOSES, LADDERS AND OTHER FIRE FIGHTING AND
RESCUE APPARATUS BETWEEN VEHICLES PARKED HEAD IN,
POTENTIALLY BLOCKING AND OTHERWISE IMPEDING ACCESS
AND BLOCKING ESCAPE ROUTES FROM HIGH RISE BUILDINGS
ENGULFED IN FLAMES. FURTHERMORE, ANY VEHICLES SO
PARKED COULD IN ITSELF BECOME ENGAGED IN THE FIRE
PROVIDING A SERIOUS SOURCE OF VOLATILE FUELS TO
AN ALREADY DANGEROUS SITUATION.
c)INADEQUATE STREET WIDTH WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROJECT
-PLEASE NOTE THE WIDTH OF THE STREET IS ONLY 24 FT
AND INCLUDES TIGHT CURVES ON CUL-DE-SACS MAKING IT
DIFFICULT AT BEST TO BRING IN EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT
ESPECIALLY IF RESIDENTS ARE TRYING TO MOVE THEIR
OWN VEHICLES OUT OF HARMS WAY AS IS USUALLY THE
CASE IN SUCH FIRE EVENTS.
d)HIGH RISE BUILDINGS REQUIRE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
FIRE FIGHTING TACTIC THAN EXISTING ONE AND TWO
STORY BUILDINGS WITHIN THE CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD.
ARE OUR FIRE FIGHTING PERSONNEL ADEQUATELY TRAINED
TO FIGHT SUCH FIRES?
e)HIGH RISE BUILDINGS (3 STORY BUILDINGS) REQUIRE 35
FOOT LADDERS TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO FIGHT FIRES AND
RESCUE CAPABILITIES. DOES THE FRIENDSWOOD FIRE DEPT
HAVE THE EQUIPMENT NEEDED, INCLUDING TRUCKS TO HAUL
SUCH EQUIPMENT TO THE FIRE SCENE?
f)AN OUT OF CONTROL LARGE FIRE NEAR THE BACKSIDE OF
THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD POTENTIALLY PLACE HOMES
IN WEDGEWOOD VILLAGE AND HERITAGE PARK VILLAGE AT
l
RISK DUE TO LIMITED ACCESS (REMEMBER ONLY ONE WAY
IN AND SAME WAY OUT TO THE PROJECT) AND A SINGLE LOOP STREET ENCOMPASSING THE HIGH RISE APARTMENT BUILDINGS.
2)POLICE CONCERNS
a)IS OUR CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT ADEQUATELY STAFFED TOPROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL PATROL REQUIRED TO RESPOND
TO REQUESTS FOR POLICE SERVICE FROM WITHIN THEPROPOSED PROJECT? HOW WILL THIS AFFECT CURRENTRESPONSE TIME WITHIN THIS DISTRICT? OR WITHIN THE
CITY?
b)CAN OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT ADEQUATELY RESPOND TO
POTENTIAL TRAFFIC MONITORING AND CONTROL MEASURESWHICH WILL RESULT FROM THE INCREASED TRAFFIC LOAD
STEMMING FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT?
D)PARKING AND TRAFFIC CONTROL CONCERNS
1)INADEQUATE PARKING-APARTMENTS PROVIDE FOR ONLY TWO(2)PARKING SPACES PER UNIT EVEN THOUGH 61% OF
APARTMENT ARE TWO (2) AND THREE (3) BEDROOM UNITS.
2)LACK OF PROPER VISITOR PARKING-THE PROPOSED PROJECT
PROVIDES FOR ONLY EIGHT (8) VISITOR PARKING SLOTS FORALL OF THE 196 UNITS IN PHASE ONE (1).
3)INADEQUATE HANDICAP PARKING-THE PROPOSED PROJECTPROVIDES FOR ONLY 9 HANDICAP PARKING SPACES FOR THE
ENTIRE FOURTEEN (14) BUILDING PROJECT! DO THEY PLANTO NOT ALLOW HANDICAP RESIDENTS TO LIVE WITHIN THEIRPROJECT OR TO ALLOW HANDICAP VISITORS TO THE PROJECT?
HOW WILL THEY BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAWS AS
RELATES TO THE AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT OR DO THEY
ACTUALLY PLAN TO RECLASSIFY OTHER PARKING SPACES THUSDECREASING OVERALL PARKING BELOW THE ALREADY MINIMUM
STANDARDS THEY HAVE PROPOSED? IF SO HOW WILL THE
PROJECT COMPLY WITH OUR EXISTING ORDINANCES?
4)WHERE WILL OVERFLOW PARKING GO?
TO WEDGEWOOD VILLAGE STREETS?
TO HERITAGE PARK VILLAGE STREETS?
TO ADJACENT PRIVATE PROPERTY?
NOTE-WATKINS WAY, THE ONLY MEANS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS
TO THE EVENTUAL PLANNED 400 APARTMENT UNITS OF BOTH PHASE ONE (1) AND TWO (2) OF THE COMPLEX OF 800 PLUS VEHICLES, IS ONLY 31 FT WIDE. IF VEHICLES PARK ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET, THEN ONLY A SINGLE LANE OF TRAFFIC APPROXIMATELY 14 FT WIDE WILL REMAIN! CAN CITY EMERGENCY VEHICLES SAFELY TRANS VERSE THROUGH SUCH A
CONFINED SPACE WHILE ENCOUNTERING HEAD ON TRAFFIC?
[
l
5)TRAFFIC AT INTERSECTION OF FM 2351 AND WATKINS WAYWILL BE SUBSTANTIAL POSSIBLY REQUIRING A TRAFFIC LIGHT
6)TRAFFIC THRU VACANT FOOD LION PARKING LOT TO BENTWOODAND BLACKHAWK COULD.LIKEWISE BE SUBSTANTIAL REQUIRINGADDITIONAL POLICE PATROL TO CONTROL.
E)LEGAL ISSUES
1)ILLEGAL P&Z PROCESS-THE DEVELOPER WAS NOT PRESENTDURING THE PRE-APP PROCESS NEITHER WAS A PLATPROVIDED AS IS REQUIRED BY CITY ORDINANCE, THEREFOREAN ILLEGAL PROCESS CAN NOT CONSTITUTE A LEGALAPPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION REQUEST.
2)AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED THE SITE PLAN DENOTES A 911CRASH GATE ON PROPERTY WHICH THE PROPOSED PROJECT'SOWNER DOES NOT HAVE LEGAL TITLE, THE LAND IS OWNEDBY THE HERITAGE PARK VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSN.
3)IMPROPER IF NOT ILLEGAL P&Z PROCESS-THE APARTMENTCOMPLEX IS A COMMERCIAL PROJECT WHERE THE OWNER ISENGAGED IN A FOR PROFIT MAKING ENTERPRISE OF RENTINGSPACE IN HIGH RISE APARTMENTS, THUS DERIVING ACONTINUING FLOW OF INCOME, ACCORDINGLY HE SHOULDBE SUBJECT TO ALL COMMERCIAL ORDINANCES, INCLUDINGHEIGHT RESTRICTIONS.
F)INSUFFICIENCY OF EXISTING CITY ORDINANCES
EXISTING CITY ORDINANCES NEED AMENDMENT TO PROPERLYREGULATE SUCH DEVELOPMENTS AS THE PROPOSED PROJECT TOENSURE THAT ALL AFFECTED PARTIES, INCLUDING FUTURERESIDENTS AS WELL AS CURRENT CITIZENS NEEDS ARE PROTECTEDTHUS ENSURING THE INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODSWHILE ALLOWING FOR ORDERLY GROWTH WITHIN THE CITY.
1)THE EXISTING ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THREE STORYCOMMERCIAL BUILDINGS SHOULD APPLY TO THE PROPOSEDHIGH RISE APARTMENT PROJECT. THE LIMITATION SHOULD BEEXTENDED TO ALL STRUCTURES WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITSOF FRIENDSWOOD.
2)ADDITIONAL ORDINANCES NEED TO BE AMENDED AS TO:
a)LIMIT DENSITY OF SUCH PROJECTS BASED ON NET ACREAGEAFTER REDUCING GROSS ACREAGE FOR APPLICABLE BUFFERZONES, RIGHT OF WAYS AND DETENTION POND/DRAINAGEFACILITIES.
b)REQUIRE GREATER AMOUNTS OF GREEN SPACE ANDRECREATIONAL FACILITIES BASED ON CRITERIASUCH AS EVENTUAL POPULATION LOAD, BUILDING SIZE,
!
AND NUMBER OF UNITS TO BE CONSTRUCTED.
c)THE SAME CRITERIA SHOULD BE USED TO DETERMINEMINIMUM POINTS OF INGRESS & EGRESS, WIDTH OF ENTRYDRIVES, STREETS WITHIN SUCH PROJECTS, NUMBER OFREQUIRED PARKING SPACES, FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS,SUCH AS FIRE LANES AND SPRINKLER SYSTEMS.
d)AFTER CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF THE ABOVE THENORDNANCES SHOULD SPELL OUT A PROCESS WHERE ALLTHESE PERTINENT ISSUES ARE FORMALLY PRESENTEDTO THE CITIZENS OF FRIENDSWOOD THRU FORMAL NOTICEFOLLOWED BY A PUBLIC HEARING PRIOR TO FORMALACCEPTANCE BY CITY COUNCIL BEFORE ANY PERMIT ORSUBDIVISION OF LAND COULD LEGALLY BE RECORDED.
OUR EXPECTATIONS
IN EFFECT WE ARE ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL OF FRIENDSWOOD TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF OUR CITY AND OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. THAT IS WHAT WE ELECTED YOU TO DO, AND WE EXPECT NO LESS FROM YOU AND OUR CITY STAFF.
1)WE REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO INSTRUCT OUR CITY STAFF TOIMMEDIATELY HALT ANY FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AS TOTHE PROPOSED PROJECTS REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF THEIRTRACT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE CONCERNS AS OUTLINED IN THISPRESENTATION HAVE BEEN PROPERLY ADDRESSED.
2)WE REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO ENSURE THAT THE PROPOSEDPROJECT MEET NOT JUST THE MINIMAL STANDARDS AS MIGHTAPPLY BUT THAT THE PROJECT BE HELD TO THE HIGHEST LEVELAS MAY BE REQUIRED BY EXISTING ORDINANCES AND AS MAYSUBJECTIVELY MADE TO APPLY.
3)WE REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING BYWHICH ALL CITIZENS WILL BE INFORMED AS TO THE STATUS OFTHE PROJECT, AND TO COMMUNICATE TO US THE ANTICIPATEDIMPACT OF IT ON OUR CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE, AND OF STEPSTHE CITY PLANS TO TAKE TO MITIGATE SUCH IMPACT.
4)WE REQUEST CITY COUNCIL TO BEGIN A PROCESS WHEREBY ALLAPPLICABLE CITY ORDINANCES WILL BE REVIEWED FOR REQUIREDAMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONCERNS RAISED AS RELATESTO SUCH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AS MIGHT OCCUR.
PLEASE NOTE THAT AN ADDITIONAL 217 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD IS ZONED SUCH THAT THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED {3,500) TO FOUR THOUSAND (4,000) SIMILAR HIGH RISE HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT UNITS COULD EVENTUALLY BECOME REALITY TO OUR CITY.
WE NEED TO APPLY THE EXPERIENCE WE HAVE GAINED THRU THIS
!
PROPOSED PROJECT TO ORDERLY CONTROL SUCH FUTURE PROJECTS
5)FINALLY WE REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO PLEASE KEEP US,
YOUR CONSTITUENTS, INFORMED!
THANK YOU
SlN:ll"llaV<lY :.JC'il��UbJ ll'VI IU
NVld .li\l:W.ldO13/\30 3.llS
·---r-F:��=-=,:...,t�,..�=n.-==..,...�n:::: r.=-=,=-= n:-:: r.:-: ,=n �� �1};"= ,..,:?-.-����::== .,...�E,,..=::::,...:::,;:.-F���=-=-=��:-t-==-=,==-=-==-=i;-1
I •II I •...... i.
I,
" I I ........ ,. I I" II I ...... T
I • II h.i--hb"""H'i.... lL � I . ,,
I � rl ····•···t·
;J,-� I l>f1· : ��x···-····l·
� I
.. I� IP I ·········1,,.1. 18,� ...... t I
§··1
!!J... Hj ,11i
r
I
? H r A' '• I I mrn lle1�t •' A ' !t I 1l ) :1!tu 1I J
f l I I
., . ,(
u '
I I •
........ . .,�•a •t�D : .
fs'Hf,j,,
I.
l
I
'�h�r,v��
.lfW rw� /flt � ,� f'-..P �
� � � ,� � �l-t�. riv -mu!� '!)
�?�Cf� 3/?2 '17!.Affr -�fWV��
� � � � S;-j;g '/J/t �11'-w t��-7¥£ ���ml�
l�-:EJ-fu�½
I I
My name is Carl Horecky, I'm speaking in behalf of the Friends Church as
their coordinator of building programs.
At the previous planning and zoning meeting that we attended we
learned two things: One that there would be this hearing, being held here
tonight where comments from the public would be heard as to the pros and
cons of the proposed ordinance to limit all building in Friendswood to two
stories. The second being that there was a site plan approved by planning
and zoning to accommodate a proposed high density apartment complex in
the 2351, Blackhawk area. However, we did not tie these two matters
together until the city council (town hall) meeting of last Monday night.
It was at this meeting that we learned that many citizens were
greatly concerned by this proposed rental apartment development and the
ensuing problems associated with it's coming . We would add that after
hearing what they had to say, we agree with and share their concerns. It is
however, the issue of the proposed ordinance change that we wish to
address.
We have previously expressed to some members of the planning and
zoning committee and to various members of city council our disagreement
with passing this ordinance limiting construction to two stories and gave
our reasons why we disagree. To reiterate that concern we would again
state the following:
Friends Church has a long range building program, and has had this
program for many years, it includes the following:
1.Up grade existing facilities to conform with ADA standards. (we
are in the process of bidding this now and hope to be started in the
near future.)
2.Build a new worship center. (The preliminary design for this is in
the hands of city officials now as we wished to solicit their early
comments.)
3.Up grade the balance of the campus to conform with today's
building standards and codes.( our existing facility is fifty years old,. and while it was in compliance when it was built it needs
upgrading.)
4·. Dismantle the parsonage across main street and the other small
house between it and the Texas New Mexico office and build a
multi storied retirement center for our senior citizens and others,
on this two and one half ( 2 1 \2) acre site.
It is with this phase of our plan, that we object to the limitations
placed on our proposed retirement center by adoption of this zoning
ordinance change. We have been planing using existing building and
zoning ordinances and now find you folks want to change the ordinances.
We feel using a ordinance change of this nature to ensure that this
proposed (fore mentioned) apartment complex does not get built is wrong,
as it would curtail future growth in areas such as those we are proposing.
We are zoned Special use. (w·hy I'm not sure) However, Via this
existing special use zoning we would be permitted to go as high as we
wanted if each floor upwards maintained the proper set back. That was our
intention and has been our plan. I hope you understand how this ordinance
change would create problems for us.
We would be building a fire fighter friendly, fire retarding structure
with a installed sprinkler system. This facility would have kitchen and
dinning facilities on the lower level along with recreational areas. It would
also have some limited covered parking for handicapped and less mobile
citizens. Apartments with balconies would be on the upper floors, with each
floor set back to accommodate the balconies.
Our goal has been to build a facility who's foot print covers minimum
ground surface so as to not disturb existing large trees. We want to have a
canopy under these trees available for foot paths, gardens, visitor parking
etc .. We want the resulting design Friendswood friendly in a park type
atmosphere. This plan has been in existence for many years and is now
moving towards fruition. We would not want to see it curtailed by passage
of this height limiting ordinance.
We further feel our plan lends itself to drainage problem solutions by
not covering a large ground area and would be an enhancement to other
areas of the community for that reason.
Again we would state that we are in agreement with the other
citiz ens concerns and believe that their problem deserves your attention
and a answer also. We believe the answer to our dilemma lies in how you
apply the existing restrictions to special use applications.
We have heard offered the explanation that multi storied buildings
can not be built because that would require buying a ladder truck for the
dire department. We believe with proper set backs for each upw ard floor, as
required by your existing zoning ordinances would negate the need for a
ladder truck, however one is probably needed regardless, with existing city
structures. Its our assumption that the very competent Friendswood Fire
Department's opinion would be solicited on this matter.
Further ,ve believe with the high cost of real estate, and the fact that
the city has approximately 50% of it's usable ground space occupied at this
time, this type of structure is justified and needed. City growth is projected
to be 3% per year until the year 2006 when it is projected our population
I
I
l
will exceed 37,000. We must be planning for the future of our city and for
the care of our senior citizens.
We also feel there are areas in this city where better utilization of
ground , (via multi storied structures ) can be incorporated while inducing
respectable businesses and corporations to make their home here. Not in
the residential areas but in the corridors along the access roads in and out
of the city and in selected spots at the discretion of the planning and zoning
committee and the city counsel. This can be accomplished if cooperation
and planning are encouraged and it can be done in such a manner as to not
change the aesthetic, neighborhood and moral values we currently enjoy.
This will require vision, foresight and open lines of communication
between elected and administrative officials and us your constituents.
You are our representatives, we have been instructed from god's
word to pray for those in authority over us; we can assure you all that we
as a church body do just that, and will continue to do so regardless of the
outcome of this ordinance.
Gentlemen: We ask you to hear our concerns, and the concerns of all
citizens, be attuned to what their desires and needs are.
We thank each one of you on the Planning and Zoning committee,
our city counsel, and administrative staff for your services rendered in these
offices on our behalf
May god bless each one of you and the city of Friendswood.
Thank you
Carl J. Horecky
(for the friends church)
l
CC: RUTH HENRY 5/3/96
City Council
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Friendswood:
Dear Friends:
DONALD R. BEETH, PH.D.
5303 WHITTIER OAKS
FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS 77546
(713) 482-0425
Previous commitments may prevent me from presenting my comments on the proposed changes to the
zoning ordinance in person. Therefore, I submit them in writing and ask for your consideration.
As I understand this change, the change is a blanket prohibition of any buildings anywhere in Friendswood
that exceed two stories with the exception that buildings in the Single Family Residential zones may be 2½
stories if there are no living quarters beyond the second story.
For the reasons that follow, I believe this ordinance change is ill advised :
1.For all or most of Friendswood, ruling out mid-size office buildings would rule out any additional office
space being built in Friendswood because:
A.The cost per square foot of office space is much less in a mid-rise than in a one or two
story building. The cost advantage of mid-rise office buildings effectively makes any other
kind commercially impractical.
B.Builders have a choice because equally suitable mid-rise office sites are in some
instances available within 100 feet of Friendswood. For example, consider the corridor along
both sides of FM528 between about the new school and the city limits. The south side is in
Friendswood and the north side is in Harris county where there are little if any building
restrictions of any sort. As an aside, in addition to building restrictions, developers and
property owners on the Friendswood side already have the dual obstacle of higher sales
taxes and higher property taxes.
2.Ruling out mid-rise office buildings could be very expensive in at least the following two ways:
A.Mid rise office buildings, unlike new homes, immediately return far more in ad valorem
taxes than they cost the city and school district.
B.Courts could view this ordinance change as a "taking" and require that the City
compensate the property holder conceivably more than it would take to buy the property
outright.
3.So sweeping an ordinance is not necessary to deal with problems such as have surfaced on the Harris
1 County side of Friendswood. Perhaps the only serious flaw in the ordinance is that it does not make a proper
distinction between single family residential and large commercial residential development.
In brief, I fully agree that improvements to the zoning ordinance are needed, I only urge that this specific
change be tabled pending further discussion and consideration to determine those changes that are most
appropriate.
Thank you,
Don Beeth