HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 1984-08-27 RegularI
11
MINUTE S OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FRIENDSWOOD
PLANNING ANDD ZONING COMMISSION
August 27, 1984
The Friendsw ood Planning and Zoning Commission held a special meeting with City Council on Mon day, August 27 , 1984, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. The followng memberswere present.
Miller -Cha irman Jones Cress Beggs Holt Hoppe Brown (8:30)
With a quorum present and none absent, the following business was transacted.
DISCUSSION WITH CITY COUNCIL ME MBE RS REGARDING SUBDIVISION
DEVELOPMENT AND R-3 ZONES
The Planning and Zoning Commission received a interdepartmental memo on August 21, 1984 from City Council stating the following.
SUBJECT: Interpretation by the Planni�g Commission on required lot sizes, setbacks, etc., for R-1 requirements in R-3 districts.
After conside rable discussion with the City Attorney and staff personnel, and review of the City's zoning regulations, the City Council strongly believes tha t the failure of the Planning Commission to require compliance with R-1 regulations in Regency Estates, Mission Estates, and Carmel Village subdivisions was in violation of section (7R-3(4) of the City's zoning ordinance. It has been and continues to be the desire of the City Council to retain the large lot approach for single fa mily residences, as we believe the existing zoning ordinance requires.
I
Page 2 August 27, 1984
It is our feeling that although it may be too late to correct the errors where construction has been completed, we believe it is not too late to remedy the errors where construction is incomplete.
It is our intent ion to discuss all aspects of the current situation as it exists in San Joaquin at a wo rkshop to be held at 7 p.m. August 27, 1984, in Council Chambers. All members of the Planning Commission are encouraged to attend this meeting in order that all possible remedies may be fully discussed.
The memo was signed by the Mayor and all members of City Council.
Mayor Lowe ask Ralph Miller, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission for the Commission's position onR-3 development. Mr. Miller explained to Council the townhomes could not be developed in R-3. By changing the ordinance this would allow-common walls for townhomes and the conveyance of land under the home for the purpose of sale. The ordinance changes were written with the assistance of the City Attorney, Larry Schenk. A memo was sent to City Counc il, December 3, 1984, recommending the changes which are under R-3 in the present zoning ordinance. Several developers recognized a loop hole in the changed ordinance that could allow single family houses in R-3 districts. The matter was discussed with the City Attorney, his advice at that time was we could not prevent single houses in.R-3 districts. The Planning and Zoning Commission decided to review the entire ordinance at this time. Several developers took advantage of the revised ordinance using common walls and the conveyance of land. Others presented plans for houses on small lots, they were Regency Estates, Mission Estates and Carmel Village.
City Attorney, Bill Olson told the Council and the Planning and Zoning Com mission the ordinance spells out R-1 in R-3 zoning must meet the set back requirements of R-1.
A majority vote of the Planning and Zoning Commission submitted the following letter to the City Council.
TO: Jim Morgan
FROM:
DATE:
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 17, 1984
RE: July 31, 1984 memo from Todd Stewart to Planning and Zoning Commission concerning small lots in R-3 zones.
11
IJ
Page 3
August 27, 1984
Todd Stewar� has charged that the Planning and Zoning Commission has:
1.Misinterpreted R-3 zone restrictions as permittingsingle family dwellings on small lots.
2.We have turned down an R-3 developer for ha ving smalllots.
3.That only developments involving a Planning and ZoningCommissioner are allowed to have sub-sized lots.
Planning and Zoning Commission's reply to each of the above charges as follows:
1.The regulations for R-3 zone were changed to allowtownhomes and cluster housing. Before the change,only apartments and condominiums could be built.The intent of the change was to allow townhousessuch as The Park and single family cluster housing.The revised ordinance was passed December, 1982.Several developers recognized a loophole in thechanged ordinance that would allow single familyhouses in R-3 districts. The Planning and ZoningChairman discussed the matter with the City Attorney.The City Attorney thought that we could not -preventsingle family houses in R-3 dis tricts. Planningand Zoning decided to review the entire ordinance atthis time. The Park and Quaker Village tooM advantage of the revised ordinance by presenting plans for townhomes.
The San Joaquin developer presented plans for houses on small lots in the R-3 district. The plans allowed 4.4 units per acre instead of 6 units per acre. Our choices were to allow single family homes or have multifamily. Allowing single family homes reduced the number of units from 600 to less than 400 units.
Regency subdivision requested changes in zoning which reduced R-3 and commercial and increased R-1. Again, we were faced with two choices: single family versus multi-family. The si ngle family choice reduced the densit y per acre and seemed to be the best choice at the time.
Plan ning and Zoning was busy closing the loophole because other builders were talking about smaller lots and smaller dwellings in R-3.
I Page tj... August 27, 1984
2.We turned down the plats for a R-3 not because of smalllots but because of many violations of the Planning andZoning ord inance, i.e. cul-de-sac too long, street on adjoining property, entrance within 10 fe et of a schoolbuilding, utility easements under building slabs, morethan 6 units per acre.
3.The member of the Planning and Zoning Commission that isinvolved with R-3 property in item 1 informed Planningand Zoning by letter October 20, 1983, that he might becomeinvolved in the property. He abstained from voting ordecision on this property. H did not actually becom�involved in this property until February, 1984. TheRegency R-3 matter was approved long before this Commissionerwas appointed.
Todd Stewart requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission exonerate itself by offering to reconsider small lots for the Cedarwood development.
We do not intend to reconsider because the development plans have been turned down for many other reasons besides small lot lize. We have discoura ged the developers by telling them that the new ordinance will close the loophole.
The above memo was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and signed by the Chairman, Ralph Miller.
The meeting with the Plann ing and Zoning Commission was adjourned.
ffld-l�