Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 1994-04-07 RegularREGULAR .MEEI'ING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 7, 1994 A REGULAR MEEI'ING OF THE FRIENDSWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WAS HELD ON THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 1994, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOivING MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: CRESS DICKSON JORDAN WASSON MEASELES-LIAISON HENRY -DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR STOKES - INTERN HOOVER -CITY PLANNER BRINKMAN -SECRETARY WITH A QOORUM PRESENT, BAKER, FINGER AND McHUGH ABSENI', VICE-CfIAIRMAN JORDAN OPENED THE MEEI'ING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ASKING FOR COMMUNICATIONS FRa-1 THE PUBLIC FOR ITEMS WHICH DID NO!' APPEAR ON THE AGENDA. WITH NO PUBLIC CQ.\1MUNICATIONS, THE FOLLOivING ITEMS WERE CONSIDERED: 1.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF QUAIL CROSSING. JOHN GARDNER OF MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING ADDRESSED THE COMMISSION REGOOING THE 364 UNIT ca-1PLEX. HE STATED THAT THE DENSITY WAS 17. 5 UNITS PER ACRE • THIS PROPERTY HAD RECEIVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AT A PREVIOUS MEEI'ING BUI' THE APPROVAL HAD EXPIRED. THE DELAY HAD BEEN WITH THE HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT AND WITH THE TEXAS HIGHWAY DEPARIMENT. WITH THOSE ITEMS HAVING BEEN RESOLVED, THE DEVELOPER WAS REQUESTING A SECOND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL SO THAT THEY COULD PROCEED WITH THE FINAL PLAT AND SITE PLAN. CQ.\1MISSIONER CRESS ASKED IF THE PARKING MEI' REQUIREMENTS, IF THE ENI'RYWAY WAS ADB;:)UATE, IF THERE WERE ADB;:)UATE FIRE HYDRANI'S, AND IF THE DETENTION POND SHOULD BE FENCED. GARDNER REPLIED THAT THE GRADING ON THE DEI'ENTION WOUID BE 3 TO 1 SLOPES AND WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 2-3 FEET IN DEPTH. HE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THERE WOULD BE A FOUNTAIN IN THE POND WHICH WOULD MAf<E IT AESTHEI'ICALLY PLEASING. SLOPE SPECS WILL ACCa.1PANY THE FINAL PLAT. IN ADDITION, DEI'ENTION FENCING COULD BE ADDRESSED ON THE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN. THE ENTRYWAY IS A CITY ACCEPI'ED STREEI' AND THE DESIGN WAS MADE WHEN FOOD LION WAS APPROVED; HONEVER, STAFF WILL INVESTIGATE IF THE ROAD COULD BE WIDENED. THE PLAN HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL AND BY THE POLICE DEPARIMENT. THERE ARE 816 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED; THE CITY ROOUIRES 740.IT WAS RECa.1MENDED THAT A FEW OF THE PARKING SPACES BE REMOVED SO THAT THERE BE A TURNING RADIUS FOR FIRE TRUCKS. COMMISSIONER WASSON STATED THAT THERE HAD BEEN SCME DISCUSSION REGARDING A GATE TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, HCMEVER, WHEN THE QUESTION WAS RAISED ABOUI' TIEING INTO THE EXISTING STREEI' RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE LCCAL CITIZENS WERE IRATE. THE CITY COULD REQUIRE, HCMEVER, THAT A I<NCX::K J:XmN GATE BE PLACED TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY ON RICHFORD STREEI', FOR EMERGENCY PURPOSES ONLY. [ : P&Z 4/7/94 Page 2 CQ\1M.ISSIONER WASSON MADE A MOI'ION TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE QUAIL CROSSING IF SCME OF THE PARKING SPACES ARE REMOVED TO ALl.£J.iJ A WIDER TURNING RADIUS AND IF A I<NOCK Da-m GATE IS ADDED TO THE REAR. SOCOND: DICKSON VOl'E FOR: UNANIMOUS OPPOSED: NONE M0rION CARRIED 2.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE FINAL PLAT OF WESTSIDE MIDDLE SCHOOL. THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE FINAL PLAT AND COMMISSIONER DICKSON MADE A MOI'ION TO GRANT APPROVAL TO THE FINAL PLAT OF WESTSIDE MIDDLE SCHOOL. SOCOND: CRESS VOl'E FOR: UNANIMOUS OPPOSED: NONE MaI'ION CARRIED. 3.PRE-APP EDWARDS SUBDIVISION. THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE PROPOSED PLAT. THERE IS A DEDICATED 10 FOaI' EASEMENT ON MEADCMLARK AND WATER AND SEWER ARE AVAILABLE. THE I.OT WILL MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AFI'ER SUBDIVISION. THE COMMISSION AGREED WITH THE CONCEPT AND ADVISED THE EDWARDS TO PROCEED. 4.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE FINAL PLAT OF VOSS SUBDIVISION. THIS ITEM WAS NaI' READY AND WAS WITHDRAWN FRCM THE AGENDA. 5.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE RECQ\1MENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE SITE PLAT FOR VOSS SUBDIVISION. THIS ITEM WAS NaI' READY AND WAS WITHDRAWN FRCM THE AGENDA. 6.PRE-APP SIMPSON ADDITION #2. THE PURPOSE OF THE SUBDIVISION IS TO REMOVE I.OT LINES IN ORDER THAT FRIENDSWOOD AUI'O CLINIC CAN ENLARGE THEIR FACILITY. THE COMMISSION HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THE CONCEPT. 7.ZONE CLASSIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST OF (CSC) COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICT TO (SFR) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING DISTRICT FOR .826 ACRES OF LAND arHERWISE KNCWN AS 208 WEST EDGE.WOOD DRIVE. A PUBLIC HEARING WAS CALLED FOR MAY 2, 1994. 8.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION OR RECCMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING: A.CUL-DE-SACS. CCM-1ISSIONER CRESS STATED THAT HE HAD NO PROBLEM ALT.£J.iJING LONGER CUL-DE-SACS IF THE I.OTS WERE MADE LARGER. HE OFFERED HIS RENDITION FOR REVIEW BY THE COMMISSION. [ P&Z 4/7 /94 Page 3 B.GARDEN Ha-IB DISTRICT AMENDMENT SETBACK/RIGHT-OF-WAY. CITY PLANNER HOOVER STATED THAT THERE HAD BEEN SCME CLARIFICATION REQUIRED REGARDING THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IN THE GARDEN HCME DISTRICT. HE REC0.\1MENDED THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE STATING THAT "FRONT YARD SETBACK SHALL BE MEASURED FRCM THE EDGE OF THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY OR THE EDGE OF THE DRAINAGE/lJrILITY EASEMENT, WHICHEVER IS FARI'HEST FROM THE STREET" CCMMISSIONER CRESS MADE A Mal'ION THAT THE AMENDMENT BE RECCM-1ENDED TO CITY COUNCIL. SECOND: DICKSONvarn FOR: UNANIMOUS OPPOSED: NONE MCYrION CARRIED. C.FENCES. THERE WAS Sa-IB DISCUSSION REGARDING DECORATIVE WROUGHT IRON FENCING AND CORRAL FENCING. CCM1ISSIONER CRESS RECCM-1ENDED THAT A DEFINITION BE ADDED FOR CORRAL FENCING. HE THEN MADE A RECCM-1ENDATION THAT HOOVER DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF FENCING WITH THE BOA AS THEY vK)lJID BE THE ENTITY GRANTING VARIANCES. THE CCMMISSION AGREED THAT HOOVER SHOULD PRESENT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE BOA FOR THEIR INPtJr AND RECCM-1ENDATION. D.PDD AMENDMENT. VICE-cHAIRMAN JORDAN STATED THAT CHAIRMAN BAKER HAD REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE Pill ON THE AGENDA IN ORDER THAT THE SUBJECT BE "Pill TO REST" • SHE STATED THAT IT WAS UNFORI'UNATE THAT A If:/r OF BAD INFOR MATION HAD BEEN PUBLISHED. SHE REQUESTED THAT HER PREPARED STATEMENT BE READ INTO THE MINurES AND THEN SAID IT WAS HER RECCM-1ENDATION THAT THE ITEM BE TABLED UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. SECOND: WASSONvarn FOR: UNANIMOUS OPPOSED: NONE MCYI'ION TO TABLE -CARRIED E.SEPI'IC SYSTEMS MOST OF THE AREAS THAT REQUIRE A SEPI'IC SYSTEM ARE ON THE FRINGES OF 'l'Oim. CCM-1ISSIONER CRESS STATED THAT THERE SHOUID BE A REQUIREMENT EITHER IN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINAN CE OR THAT P&Z SHOULD HAVE A WRITI'EN POLICY REGARDING SEPI'IC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS. IT WAS AGREED THAT THERE SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 2 ACRES REQUIRED FOR A SEPTIC SYSTEM AND 2. 5 ACRES FOR BOI'H WATER WELL AND SEPI'IC SYSTEM. HOOVER WILL PREPARE BOI'H TO BE CONSIDERED AT A LATER MEETING. 9.C0.\1MtJNICATIONS FROO: A.STAFF CITY PLANNER HOOVER STATED THAT THERE WAS A CHURCH THAT WANTED TO USE THE FACILITY OF THE SCHOOL FOR THE HANDICAPPED ON A TEMPORARY BASIS. THE SCHOOL HAS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. IN ORDER FOR THE CHURCH TO tJrILIZE THE BUILDING ON SUNDAY, vK)ULD THEY BE REQUIRED TO GET A PERMIT? THE CHURCH DID WANT TO Pill A SIGN UP AND A SIGN PERMIT � BE REQUIRED. DISCUSSION FOLI..CmED AND THE CCM1ISSION AGREED THAT AS THE f l l l P&Z 4/7/94 Page 4 CHURCH WOUI.D BE TEMPORARY AND AS THERE WOULD BE NO ALTERATION OF THE BUILDING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT WOULD NOT BE REX)UIRED. B.Ca.1MISSIONERS CQ\1MISSIONER WASSON STATED THAT SHE HAD READ WHERE THE CLEAR CREEK DRAINAGE DISTRICT WILL ACQUIRE A 35 ACRE TRACT OF LAND THROUGH DONATION AND A 22 ACRE TRACT THAT WAS INDICATED IN CCDD MINUTES. SHE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT CCDD WAS CONSULTED REGARDING THE CCMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SHE STATED THAT LARGE TRACTS OF LAND COULD HAVE A MULTI USE PURPOSE. 1994 -APPROVED AS CORRECTED. I 1 [ I l l Remarks for the Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 7, 1994 First I would like to emphasize that, while I am chairing tonight's meeting in my capacity as Vice Chairman, in the absence of the Chairman, who could not be with us tonight due to the death of a close, personal friend, I am making the following remarks on behalf of myself and myself alone. I am not speaking for any other members of the Commission, the Mayor or any past mayors, the City Council, or any other past Councilmembers. Each commissioner, as an individual, has the right to his or her own opinions. I have lived in Friendswood since 1977. I served as a City Councilmember for eight years, from 1982-1990. I have served as a Planning & Zoning Commissioner since 1991, and as Vice-Chairman since 1993. I have lived in three homes in Friendswood, two on ninety-foot wide lots, and one on a one hundred twenty-foot wide lot. For the past three and a half years, I have chosen to live in a condominium development, where I do not personally have to care for the grounds or the pool. I have made this choice deliberately, as my responsibilities as a single mother of two active children in the Friendswood Independent School District, as a Planning & Zoning Commissioner, and as a single head-of-household, require essentially all of my time. Pe rsonally, I consider it a blessing to be able to live in a lovely place where I have no yard or pool chores to do. I know I was not alone in wanting the houses I have had, and I know I am not alone now in wanting the freedom that living in a condominium affords me. As a councilmember, I was active in re-writing and updating the Zoning Ordinance in 1984. At a later date, I introduced a resolution declaring the City's official motto to be "Sharing and Caring," the inspiration for which came from some remarks that former Mayor Ralph Lowe once made. I think Friendswood is a beautiful place to live, with its combination of apartments, condominiums, smaller-than-ninety-foot lots, ninety-foot lots, and larger-than-ninety-foot lots. The reason that most of the City is exceptionally beautiful is that great care is taken in every kind of development, whether it be residential or commercial, that buffer zones, landscaping, setbacks, maximum allowable density, and numerous other items are taken into consideration with great care before Planning & Zoning approves a site plan or recommends a zoning change to the City Council. It has been stated that Planning & Zoning will "kill" the Planned Development District proposed ordinance tonight. Actually, a vote may be taken tonight, but I can't predict how any other person will vote. It takes an affirmative vote of four commission-members to take any action, and that remains true no matter how many commissioners are present. For example, if only five commissioners are present at a meeting, it still takes four votes to take any kind of action, whether it be for or against something. [ i ! l l Page Two I know only how I plan to vote, and I have not discussed my vote tonight with anyone else. Anyone who knows me well can tell you I am pretty independent when it comes to votes I cast. To the great misfortune of Friendswood citizens, a tremendous amount of incomplete or inaccurate information has been spread concerning planned development districts. This is what I believe to be the meaning of such a district. The maximum number of homes per acre would be 2.7, which is exactly the same maximum density that is currently allowed in subdivisions of single-family homes on ninety-foot or greater-width lots. The minimum lot width proposed is eighty feet. In order to achieve the same density, of no more than 2.7 homes in an acre, other lots would have to be somewhat larger than ninety-feet wide. The ordinance as proposed requires the developer to donate 10% of the land in the subdivision, either to the City for parks, or to the Friendswood or Clear Creek Independent School Districts, for schools or school facilities. If you look around the greater Houston area, you will see some examples of planned development communities, such as Kingwood, First Colony, or portions of the Clear Lake City area. The concept is to afford the developer some creativity in its land-use plan, to provide for public areas, and to give the City of Friendswood detailed, specific control over the development. Once a subdivision were to be approved under the proposed ordinance, practically ANY change in the plan would have to come back before the City for approval. It is NOT a carte blanche approval by any stroke of the imagination. Professionals in the field have estimated that such a development, in which the developer gives away 10% of its acreage, is only feasible in a development consisting of approximately four hundred acres or more. It is presently estimated by the City staff that only three or four tracts of land still undeveloped in Friendswood would be candidates for a planned development district. There is no truth to the statement that tiny lots would be allowed. Again, I emphasize that the minimum lot width proposed is eighty feet, that maximum density remains at 2.7 homes to the acre, and that, therefore, a number of lots would have to be greater than ninety-feet wide for the density to remain at 2.7. In today's housing market, the cost of an eigh�oot lot would dictate a home with a price beginning somewhere around $125,000. This is not what I call low-income housing. With a 5% down payment, a family purchasing a $125,000 home would have to obtain a mortgage for $118,750. This translates, assuming a 7.5% interest rate on the mortgage, to monthly principal and interest payments of [ 1 [ I l Page Three about $830. With taxes and insurance, this payment would be about $1,180 per month. A fairly common rule among mortgage companies concerning debt ratios would dictate that a family's monthly gross income would have to be around $4,200 at the very least, or around $50,000 annually. Granted, many families in Friendswood enjoy a greater income. But many families in Friendswood do not. All newcomers to Friendswood would need this annual income to qualify to purchase the LEAST expensive home in a planned development district. Hence, I repeat, this is hardly low-income housing. And on top of that, if a family wanting to purchase a new home in Friendswood had any kind of instalment debt, such as a car payment, or two, or student debt loans, or a home improvement loan to build a swimming pool, or whatever, their minimum annual income would have to be substantially HIGHER than $50,000. By the way, these numbers sound like they come from a real estate broker, possibly the Mayor of Friendswood. But they are my own calculations, based on my own experience as a banker, an investment banker, a city councilmember, a realtor, and a new home buyer. Sure, each of us would have liked for the fence gate to have closed the day after we moved here. But that isn't very realistic. How many of you would be enjoying the quality of life in Friendswood if the gate had closed in the mid-60's, when the Mayor's family moved here, or in the early fifties, when former Mayor Lowe's family moved here, or in the mid-to-late 60's when the chairman of this commission moved here, or in 1977 right after I moved here? Things have changed over the years in Friendswood, mostly for the better. The past and present City Councils have tried to control the growth in a positive way, not stop it. The past and present planning & zoning commissioners have tried to do the same thing. As Chairman Baker said recently, all of the past and present councilmembers, mayors, and commissioners have chosen to make Friendswood their home, too. None of us wants to act in a manner that is detrimental to the community. Recently, in a letter to the editor of the Journal, the remark was made by a long-time resident of Friendswood, an individual who has not only sought public office, but whose wife has done the same several times, that he and his wife worked hard enough to be able to afford to live in Friendswood, with its ninety-foot lots, and so should future generations. I believe I am correct in noting that this individual owned a home on a lot somewhat smaller than ninety­feet wide, and now lives in the same condominium development that I do, probably enjoying it for some of the same reasons I have said I do. All I ask is that you consider facts, not rumors, not incorrect information. If it is the fault of this commission that the facts have not been made known widely, then I will volunteer to write a I [ l l Page Four summary of the proposed ordinance and offer it to the Journal and the News for publication. I would be happy to have anyone check the summary for its accuracy and completeness before it is published. Or, perhaps in the interest of covering current issues accurately and thoroughly, one or both of these publications might consider publishing the proposed ordinance in its entirety. I am going to vote against procee ding with the proposed ordinance for the time being, until and if the facts can be made known. Then, if truthful and responsible citizens still oppose it, I will probably accede to the public's desire to leave things as they are. The idea of planned develo pment districts originated with a very creative City staff who sought to show us what has been achieved successfully in other places. I originally opposed the concept of lots smaller than ninety feet, but was leaning towards supporting the proposed ordinance when the three most important ideas were included: that the maximum density remain as it is now, at 2.7 homes to the acre, that the smallest lot could not be less than eighty feet wide, and that valuable land would go to either the City or a school district, free of charge to taxpayers. I hope, when all of you consider these facts, that you may become more open-minded on the subject, as I believe I have. But you may not change your mind -that is certainly your right. I do not object to public outcry against an idea if the individual members of the public have considered facts, not incorrect or misleading information. However, I believe that, at this point in time, not enough people have had the correct facts, for whatever reason, and that it would be a mistake to push ahead, leaving the public behind. After all, it is the public citizenry of Friendswood that has chosen some enlightened leaders over the history of this City, which is why we have the City we have today, one that we can be proud of. And the opinion of the majority of the public citizenry means a lot to me, as one who is charged with the responsibility of participating in some important decisions. Friendswood will grow well into the next century. But as long as we are all sharing (information, for example) and caring (about our fellow citizens), then this City will remain the remarkable place that it is. For all of these reasons, and for no others, I plan to vote tonight to table all discussion of planned development districts, until more light can be brought to the discussion. I welcome the citizen input, I congratulate anyone who has taken the time to become involved, and I respect your collective wishes at this time. A:\P&Z l{)a n [unt/Jl yt._.;-