HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 1975-04-17 Public Hearing! I PUBLIC HEARING OF THE FRIENDSWO OD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
April 17, 1975
A Public Hearing of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission was held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall on Thursday, April lV, 1975. The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Tracy Spears. Members present we re:
Tracy Spears, Chairman Clyde Raney, Vice-Chairman Leah North, Secretary Ken Fossler Bob Phillips Jim Shore John Tirado
After introducing Mr. Bob Atkinson, Land Use Representative , and stating the reasons for the proposed zoning changes, Chairman Spears opened the hearing to comments and/or questions from those present.
Ronald Vohl, 219 Rachael Lane, presented a petition to the Commission with signatures of homeowners from Annalea Subdivision to FM2351. This petition is against the rezoning-of Parcel l (as shown on attached map), from R-1 (SingleFamily Residential) to R-3 (Planned Unit Development), the feeling being the lowering of property value of homes in the Annalea Subdivision. Mr. Vohl said that in the past they have petitioned to vote down the same proposed zoning.
Wes • Pearson, 301 Rachael Lane, voiced his objection to this same proposed change. He stated he moved to Friendswood basically because it was a singlehousing development and he would prefer seeing it stay this way. He also stated if this did remain R-1 (Single-Family Residential) he would like to see the housing density cut down. Mr. Pearson also asked if another rezoning would be requested should the proposed change not take place.
Chairman Spears replied that anyone can ask to have property rezoned and request a hearing at any time, but that the Commission itself would not be reviewing this for approximately 5-7 years.
Mr. Pearson asked if there was a petition requesting this rezoning and Chairman Spears replied there was not a petition, it was strictly on the recommendation of the Commission and Mr. Atkinson. At this time, Mr. Atkinson gave the reasons for the suggested rezoning from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to R-3 (Planned Unit Development) and they were: (a) to use as a buffer zone,(b)this tract of land had no direct relation to existing residential area,(c)would have access to highway only, which is maintained by State HighwayDepartment, (d) size of tract, and (e) location in relation to the downtownarea.
Ann Gibson, 503 Stoneledge, objected to R-3 (Planned Unit Development) because of high density, as did Graham Clark, 220 Rachael Lane. Janet Wade, 310 Castlewood, objected on the grounds that this might possible become a rent subsidy development.
Ledford Hicks, 208 W. Edgewood, objects to R-3 (Planned Unit Development). He feels this would de-value his property (which was purchased for retirement purposes), plus burden the city utilities. He also voiced concern regarding drainage, his feelings being that proper drainage is already a problem and high density development would create further drainage problems. Mr. Atkinson replied that the developer would be required to provide necessary drainage where it could not drain onto residential areas.
Jeanette French, 303 Quaker Drive, questioned why the multiple family dwellings could not be put in the more undeveloped areas. Chairman Spears replied with approximately the same reasons Mr. Atkinson had provided earlier: (a)there had not been a request for development of this type in the underdeveloped areas, (b) multiple dwelling on main highways leaves maintenance ofstreet to the State, and (c) is used as a buffer between commercial andresidential areas.
James Mitchell, 301 Virginia Lane, submitted a petition to the Commission objecting to the rezoning of Parcel 2 (as shown on attached map)from R-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) to C-1 (Commercial). It was discovered that Mr. Mitchell was confused on the zoning definitions, he understood the change was to be from Residential to Commercial. After learning it would be changed from present zoning of Multiple-Family to Com mercial, rather.· than Single-Family to Commercial, he stated he would prefer the proposed C-1 (Commercial) zoning. He stated he would submit another petition to the Commission after explaining the misunderstan di ng on the present zoning to those whose signat ures appear on the petition. Mr. Mitchell also questioned if an area that is zoned Commercial would be required to erect a fence between the Commercial area and Residential area. He was told by the Commission that a 6 foot solid fence would be required.
There being no further comments or questions, the hearing was adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
��JoJ-u M onv