Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 1996-06-17 Speciall MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1996 A Special Meeting of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Monday, June 17, 1996 at 7:00 p.m in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 910 S. Friendswood Dr., Friendswood, Texas. The following members were present: Baker -Chair Clark Hoover -City Planner Kneupper -City Engineer Brinkman -Secretary Cress Grace Whittenburg Lowe -Council Liaison Olson -City Attorney With a quorum present, Burke and Finger absent, Chair Baker called the meeting to order to consider the following: 1.DOCKETED JOINT PUBLIC HEARING: To receive public comment, either oral or written, regarding the A.Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance 84-15, Sections 2D and 7D, to change the density of Multi-Family Residential -High Density (MFR-H) From 18 units per acre to 12 units per acre. B.Proposed amendment tot he Zoning Ordinance 84-15, Sections 7B, C, C.1,D, and P (Permitted Use Table) to require all multi-family developments to be subject to a specific use permit. Ron Ritter, Wedgewood Village commended council on the steps it had taken to request this ordinance change and offered his support of the proposed change. Mr. Robinson of Village on the Park Retirement Center located on Parkwood. Mr. Robinson stated that it had been the intention of the developers to add to the retirement center. He stated that the apartment units do not contain kitchens, will not add to the traffic situation, nor does the retirement center add additional children to the school system. Robinson stated that the average age of residents for the retirement center is between 70 and 95 years of age; therefore, consideration had to be given to the distance the elderly people would have to walk. In addition, the units could only be single storied. Robinson then asked if the density could be greater with a PUD zoning because the current average is 16 units per acre. He said that it was his belief that the City ought to somehow allow for a PUD to exceed the density or exclude senior housing from this ordinance. City Attorney offered some concerns but stated that something could be done to accommodate a greater density for this purpose. Olson then added that the ordinance would not hinder the establishment of a higher density under a PUD. Tony Banfield expressed his concern with this ordinance. Mr. Banfield said that this would create a hardship for the developers of existing multi-family dwellings that were constrncted under the old density as the ordinance would make them non-conforming. Every ten to fifteen years a developer has to go for refinancing of his project and if the project is non-conforming, the financing agent will more than l P&Z 6/17/96 Page 2 likely refuse the loan. The developer would then be in default of the loan. The same concern would apply if a property were damaged beyond the 50% allowance; the structme would not conform to the ordinance. John Olson, City Attorney, wrote a revision to the proposed ordinance, Section 6.D.2 which states "provided however, existing multi-family dwelling developments may be rebuilt in district MFR-H in the event of such destruction, at the same unit per acre density that existed prior to such destruction". Howard Yeager spoke stating that he didn't view senior citizen housing as apartments and would favor allowing the type of density a developer would have to have in a PUD, limiting that density to one story. Ed Stuart stated that his apartment complex, consisting of 32 units, was primarily occupied by senior citizens and he had more property he would like to develop. John Olson also stated that there had been a suggestion that Garden Home Districts be excluded from the specific use permit requirement and could be addressed by a slight change to the verbiage, addressing the MFR-L rather than MFR-GHD. This change was also made to the revised ordinance. With no fu1iher comment, Planning and Zoning adjourned and reconvened in the second floor conference room to give: A.Consideration and Possible recommendation to City Council regarding the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance 84-15, Sections 2D and 7D, to change the density of Multi-Family Residential -High Density (MFR-H) from 18 units per acre to 12 units per acre. Discussion followed regarding the density for Senior Housing and everyone agreed that this issue could be addressed under the PUD zoning. Motion: Commissioner Cress made a motion that the density be changed for multi-family high density from 18 units per acre to 12 units per acre, with the revised wording as given by John Olson. Second: Whittenburg Vote for:Unanimous Motion Carried B.Consideration and possible recommendation to City Council regarding the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance 84-15, Sections 7B, C, C.l ,D, and P (Permitted Use Table) to require all multi-family developments to be subject to a Specific Use Permit. With regard to the Specific Use Permit requirement there was concern over duplexes having to comply with the specific use permit requirement. City Planner Hoover stated that there were some duplexes being proposed in the Bay Park Area. It was the general consensus of the commission that duplexes and garden homes should not fall under that requirement; therefore, the Commission decided to recommend the proposed ordinance, excluding the MFR-L from the ordinance. I P&Z 6/17/96 Page 3 Motion: Commissioner Whittenburg, to recommend approval of the Specific Use Permit, excluding the MFR-L density from the ordinance. Second: Cress Vote for:Unanimous Motion Caniecl Both recommendations will be forwarded by Commissioner Whittenburg and City Attorney Olson's revisions will be attached. Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.