Preview of June 12, 2018 City Council Meeting
This meeting will be largely ministerial, with the council addressing a number of issues, such as board appointments and construction contracts.
One of the first issues to be decided is the bidding for the Crisp Road construction contract.
Unfortunately, the Ed Bell Company was the lowest bidder. They were responsible for the massively delayed FM740 construction contract that recently finished. As a property owner along Crisp, I would much prefer another construction company be selected.
Despite those delays, city staff has recommended that the City select Ed Bell as the contractor.
The applicant presented an inadequate tree plan originally, and the resubmitted plan once again fails to meet the minimum tree requirements of the Heath Tree Preservation statute. The City’s tree preservation requirements are one of the most lax in the area, and the proposed plan fails to meet even those meager requirements.
The proposed tree replace barely exceeds the city requirements by only .5%. Additionally, the plan includes several undesirable trees, Bald Cypress and Italian Cypress. The plan also attempts to replace 33" of the required trees with essentially large shrubs, Crepe Myrtle and Italian Cypress.
In addition to the previous flaws, the landscape plan once again fails to provide any shading to the pedestrian sidewalk along the FM 549 and Horizon Road frontages. The tree plan does not serve the city well, and shows the self-focused nature of the property owner that was evident during the filings for the building plan.
The proposed signage conforms with the city requirements and does not seem overly bad.
The only concern is the lighted nature of the sign immediately adjacent to residential areas.
The remaining issue is the ordinance establishing a new zoning category SFE-3.0. This category would apply to lots of at least three acres and is an attempt to encourage larger lot sizes than the currently standard 1 acre lot size. There are a few items that do not seem to serve that role.
The restrictions on the size of accessory structures do not truly incentivize larger lots. At 10+ acres, you get less than twice what an owner would receive at the 3 acre size. That creates an incentive for owners to request that a lot be subdivided into smaller parcels than what is being purchased in order to maximize the accessory structure requirements. The downside to this strategy is the cap on the size of any building which can be eradicated by splitting the desired structure and the associated increase in fees due to the city, which would probably range around 5% of the total price of the property. For example, a 10 acre parcel consisting of 3 3+ acres lots combined together would allow a total accessory structure size of 10,500 feet, around 60% more than allowable if the lot was a single 10 acre lot.
As a result, the allowed floor area of the larger lot sizes should be adjusted to take this into account, and further incentivize the purchase of large lots. If the city tries to overly restrict what is done on larger lots, there will be no incentive to pay a premium for large lots, no incentive to offer them instead of 1 acre lots, and as a result, the zoning category will never be used.
The conditional uses list confusingly contains Agricultural use as a use that requires use permits. There is no limit on the lot size for that requirement. As a result, no matter the size of the lot purchased, a city permit is required to engage in simple tasks such as having horses or cattle. That is yet another catch that will dissuade developers from requesting that property be zoned with this category. On a lot of at least three acres this type of use should be allowed without a permit requirement.
Another requirement that dramatically reduces the attractiveness of this statute is the requirement that accessory buildings share the same materials as the main dwelling.
This needlessly increases the cost of any accessory buildings without providing an offsetting benefit. There is no demonstrated benefit of having accessory buildings match the main dwelling. In fact, I would argue that having a separate design for accessory buildings sets them apart from the main dwelling. In a rural setting, accessory buildings that look like rural barns are attractive features. In addition to not providing an attractive benefit, the limitation applies to any accessory structure, no matter the size or use. For example, a loafing shed for horses would be required to be of the same type of materials and roofing structure as the main dwelling. That does not make sense, and there is not even a mechanism to allow for exceptions without getting approval via an exception which means going before the P&Z Board and City Council for small inexpensive accessory structures.
Without changes to address these issues, I think that developers are unlikely to find buyers that find the lots to be attractive, and will as a result, will not be utilized in place of one acre lot offerings.
