Loading...
1982 07 26 CC Minutes, Special20726 -1 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN July 26, 1982 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in special session on Monday, July 26, 1982, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the Baytown City Hall with the following attendance: Fred T. Philips Jimmy Johnson Perry M. Simmons Mary E. Wilbanks Roy L. Fuller Allen Cannon Emmett 0. Hutto Fritz Lanham Larry Patterson Randy Strong Judy Melville Councilman Councilman Councilman Councilwoman Councilman Councilman Mayor City Manager Assistant City Manager City Attorney Deputy City Clerk The meeting was called to order with a quorum present and the following business was transacted: Consider Appeal of Brockman Builders, Inc. from the Decision of the Baytown Planning Commission on July 19, 1982 Councilman Allen Cannon made a statement that since he was a resident of the area in question and had been very close to the situation, he would ask to be excused from the Council table for the proceedings. Councilman Cannon did reserve the right to speak from the audience as a private citizen. * Walker Glenn, Vice President of Brockman Builders, Inc., a construction development firm from Monroe, Louisiana, addressed the Council in relation to his firm's effort to obtain preliminary approval of building permit for a 130 - unit apartment complex on Nolan Road. On June 21, they met with the Planning Commission of the City of Baytown at which time the application was reviewed and rejected because the complex did not meet the parking requirements of the City of Baytown. No other reasons or comments were made at this time by the Planning Commission, either pro or con. When the meeting was adjourned, the developers returned to Monroe, met with their architect, revised the parking and sent the revised plans to Bill Cornelius, Director of Planning and Traffic of the City of Baytown. These were received three days after the Planning Commission met. The developers talked several times with Mr. Cornelius who counted the parking spaces and told them they were now in conformance with the parking space requirements. Mr. Glenn stated that Mr. Cornelius said that as far as he could see all requirements of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Baytown had been met. A letter was received from the City of Baytown explaining that since the city has no zoning ordinance, there were no zoning requirements on the property. Preliminary approval was again sought on July 19, 1982, the next scheduled meeting *Councilman Cannon was not present at the Council table after this point. 20726 -2 Minutes of the Special Meeting - July 26, 1982 of the Planning Commission. The developers were informed at this time that since there was only one entrance /exit into the project an unsafe condition would exist in any emergency. This meeting was a month after the first official meeting with the Planning Commission, and Mr. Glenn said that this was the first time they had been notified that the entrance would be a problem. They do not own any of the land around the project and trying to get a second exit would be very difficult. They felt that since they met all the codes and the requirements of the City of Baytown, they should be granted preliminary approval of this project. They had searched the Code and could find no reference to the number of entrances to apartment complexes. He mentioned that they had also met with the City of Baytown Engineering Department and received verbal approval that all requirements of the Engineering Department had been met. Mr. Glenn stated that he felt Brockman Builders had acted in good faith and would like to request that the decision of the Planning Commission be overturned and preliminary approval be granted. Councilman Johnson asked Mr. Glenn why they were rushing through the request for approval. He felt that the project had been in the planning stages long enough for approval to have been sought earlier. Mr. Glenn answered that there was no need in going before the Planning Commission until financing was available and approval had been granted by HUD. Councilman Philips asked Mr. Glenn what the Engineering Department had reviewed specifically in the plans sent to them. Mr. Glenn explained that the Engineering Department had been sent a complete set of plans and had reviewed the water lines, the sewer lines and the design for storm water retention. The latter needed to be revised to meet the requirements of the new drainage ordinance. This was upgraded and verbal approval was obtained from the Engineering Department on Friday, July 23. In answer to question by Council, Mr. Glenn stated that the Engineering Department did see and must sign the complete plans and specifications. He also stated that once the Engineering Department signs the site layouts, they become the plans and specifications for the project. Nothing at this point has been signed. Mayor Hutto explained that this was not required for preliminary approval but would come at the time of final approval. Mr. Douglas Gunn, 1509 Donovan, addressed the Council as a representative of the residents of the area surrounding the proposed project. Mr. Gunn recalled that the City Council had charged the Planning Commission with making a decision regarding the request for approval. According to Mr. Gunn, the Planning Commission had legal advice and were told that they were within their boundaries to deny approval. Even though there is no ordinance which addresses the issue of the entrances /exits, he felt that the Planning Commission had to decide if it was safe or not. He felt that if this , 20726 -3 Minutes of the Special Meeting - July 26, 1982 project was approved, maintenance would be a problem for the residents and the city. He also felt that the drainage problems which already exist in the area would worsen. Mr. Gunn asked on behalf of the residents of the area that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Allen Cannon, 1601 Donovan, spoke as a citizen and a resident of the neighborhood of the project in question. He expressed the hope that Council would not be placed in a difficult position when final approval was requested. He said he didn't want Council to be pressured by the amount of money the developers have committed. He reviewed the following points. On July 8, 1982, the Council by unanimous vote sent the message to the Planning Commission of their grave concern with regard to the safety factor of the project having only one entrance /exit. In attendance at this meeting were at least two board members of the Baytown Housing Authority plus the Executive Director Bill Eiland. On July 19, 1982, the Planning Commission again reviewed the project. After lengthy discussion by the eight members present, the Planning Commission by a five to three vote decided the project would be unsafe with only one entrance /exit. Subsequently, a letter was received from Brockman Builders, Inc. stating they had made an assumption that the project would be approved so they sold $4,000,000 in bonds and over $4,000,000 in notes. They had not even received preliminary approval from the Planning Commission, yet they made an eight million dollar commitment. The builder said in the letter they were unaware of any conflict over the project until the morning of July 19, 1982. They should have had a representative, in Mr. Cannon's opinion, at the Council Meeting on July 8, 1982, when it was discussed. It seems that if there was communications breakdown, it was between the Baytown Housing Authority and the developer. The City had no obligation to go to them at that point. A resident of Baytown Authority Housing, Ms. Cumi Crum, asked to speak to the Council. Ms. Crum informed Council that she has been a Baytown Housing Authority resident for two years because she is disabled and unable to work. She wanted Council to know that without the help of the Housing Authority she would not have a place to live. She wanted the residents of the area who are trying to block the project to look at the problem from the point of view of someone being helped by the authority. She wanted them to realize that someday one of them might have a loved one who needed the help of the Housing Authority. Bill Eiland, Director of the Baytown Housing Authority, expressed his support for the project essentially because there is a tremendous need for this type of housing in Baytown. In Baytown since 1980, 500 names have been placed on a waiting list -- people who cannot be helped by the Housing Authority because there isn't sufficient housing. He stated that he is not an expert on safety, but noted that there are other apartment complexes in Baytown at this time that do not have more than one entrance /exit. HUD has approved the plans and design. The question came up why there is such a rush to get approval when the matter has been pending since 1979. The fact is that although it has been pending, it was impossible for the project to proceed forward until April of this year. Final approval by HUD was not given until this 20726 -4 Minutes of the Special Meeting - July 26, 1982 time to enable the contractor to apply to the Planning Commission for a permit. Mr. Eiland expressed his feelings that he would like to see the project approved because it is so badly needed in Baytown. On behalf of the Baytown Housing Authority and many people that are on the waiting list for housing, he promised that the units would be maintained. In response to question by Council, Mr. Eiland stated that the Baytown Housing Authority would have one of two responsibilities regarding the project. They will either handle the house payments and therefore be a supervisory agent over the management agent or they will be the managing agent and HUD will perform the supervisory role. This issue has not been decided. Councilman Philips expressed his preference that the Housing Authority assume the latter role thus being responsible for the maintenance of the project. When asked how this could come about, Mr. Eiland said that Council needed to express their wishes to him and he would take it to the Housing Authority Board. Mayor Hutto asked to be put into the record the receipt of a letter from Brockman Builders, Inc. requesting a special meeting of the City Council be called so that they could, as per Section 27 -5 of the Baytown City Code, appeal the decision of the Baytown Planning Commission. Mayor Hutto added, the City of Baytown has the authority to adopt an ordinance to require a certain minimum number of driveways but in the absence of such an ordinance, the City Council has no authority to withhold plat approval. Being in compliance with the Code of Ordinances it then becomes an administrative function for the City of Baytown to issue the required permits to Brockman Builders. (For letter, see Attachment "A ".) Councilman Fuller stated that in the absence of ordinances to restrict the building of this project, he would move to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and grant preliminary approval of the plat. Councilman Philips seconded the motion. Councilman Philips requested that final approval should be subject to an in -depth detailed review of all plans and specifications. Councilman Johnson said that although he realizes the legal position of the City Council, he must represent the people who elected him and therefore cannot support the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Simmons, Wilbanks and Fuller Mayor Hutto Nays: Councilman Johnson In response to a question from Attorney indicated that he had not the State Attorney General's office of a Public Meeting in the issue of said that if the ruling stated that necessary, building permits already and no new permits would be issued. the audience, the City received a ruling from regarding the necessity the housing project. He such a hearing was issued would be withdrawn Councilman Philips asked that Council consider the question of the role the Baytown Housing Authority would take in the management of the project. Mayor Hutto explained that this would be brought to Council later by the Administration. N 20726 -5 Minutes of the Special Meeting - July 26, 1982 Council asked that the issue of safety involving apartment complexes be studied and changes made if necessary. Adjourn There being no further business to be transacted, the special meeting was adjourned. a Ju y Me lle, beputy City Clerk l"