HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-09-06 P&Z Meeting MinutesNARY PLAT OF
2
J
a
SUBDIVISION
HADDOCK
4.882 ACRES
PEARLAND-BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS
AUGUST, 1988
M
4-
Dated this the
FLOOD ZONE STATEMENT
Signed by:
SS' 3 IS II!
O31tlUi3Hd
P. O. Box 2068 • Peorlond, Texas 77588-2068
AGENDA - REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/CAPITAL IMPR0VEMENTS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF PEARLAND, TEXAS, TO BE HAD ON SEPTEMBER 6, 1988,
AT 7:30 P. M. IN THE CITY HALL, 3519 LIBERTY DRIVE, PEARIAND, TEXAS
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Special Meeting of August 15, 1988
III. NEW BUSINESS:
A. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION - PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED IMPACT ±E1 S
AND UPDATED 10 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN BY CHARLES KALKOMEY OF
BERNARD JOHNSON, INC.
B. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING:
1. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HADDOCK SUBDIVISION, 4.882 ACRES, BEING PART
OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY ONE-HALF OF LOT 90 OF THE GEORGE W. JENKINS
SUBDIVISION, W. D. C. HALL LEAGUE, ABSTRACT 70, MARK AND SUZANNE
HADDOCK, OWNERS. (3989 Dixie Farm Road)
2. FINAL PLAT OF HADDOCK SUBDIVISION, 4.882 ACRES, BEING PART OF THE
SOUTHWESTERLY ONE-HALF OF LOT 90 OF THE GEORGE W. JENKINS
SUBDIVISION, W. D. C. HALL T.FAGUE, ABSTRACT 70, MARK AND SUZANNE
HADDOCK, OWNERS. (3989 Dixie Farm Road)
C. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION - REQUEST OF FINE BEDFORD FOR A
VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
IV. ADJOURN
POSTED: 0:2- DAY OF I , A. D., 1988, NJ .72-p /2 .M.
REMOVF i) : 7 DAY OF
A.D., 1988.
G
Q
C=g
EEED
VD
=)
eB
Innovative Concepts In Business, Inc.
August 30, 1988
Planning & Zoning
City of Pearland
3519 Liberty Drive
Pearland, Texas 77588
Gentlemen:
My wife and I own the property in Pearland, Texas
known by the street address of 2020 North Galveston
Avenue with all improvements located thereon. We
intend to purchase a small narrow track of vacant,
unimproved property directly behind ours and
currently owned by Kenneth & Carol Carter. An
illustrative and not scaled map is enclosed for your
convenience in ascertaining existing property owners
in the area and their relationship to this proposed
sale. As you may note, the property in question is
identified as "Landlocked Sale Of Property" and
shaded for recognition. This long narrow strip of
land comprises approximately one (1) acre.
We certainly recognize that laws (ordinances) are
promulgated for the health, benefit, and general
welfare of all citizens and we attempt to abide by
these rules of society. All laws must necessarily
be interpreted within the spirit in which they were
drawn, and an undue hardship on any individual would
require an examination of the specific aspect of the
law creating such hardship, and, fortunately the
writers of these laws foresaw the need for excep-
tions (variances) which would exempt those hardships
from being enforced.
It is our opinion that the sale of the above
described property falls within this exception pro-
vision of your ordinance requiring surveying,
platting, sub -dividing, and permits. The intended
use of this acquisition shall be for two purposes,
i.e.:
(1) Additional yard and garden space with a
large outbuilding for storage of miscellaneous
tools, equipment, and personal items.
(2) Prevention of the establishment of some
type of commercial venture directly behind and
abutting six (6) residential properties:
1204E DIXIE FARM RD. • HOUSTON, TEXAS 77089 • (713) 484-9262
a. Williams
b. Desmond
c. McFarland
d. Partridge
e. Bedford
f. Nichols, Jr.
Because the Pearland Ordinance would require, if
implemented, the surveying, platting, sub -dividing,
and permitting of this small narrow piece of
property, we are told that the cost of such survey-
ing, platting, sub -dividing, and permitting would
approximate 27% of the value of the land sale. This
should and must be considered an undue hardship
especially when combined with the fact that the
property purchased is landlocked.
With all consideration we hereby apply for a
'variance' to the Planning & Zoning Board for the
above described piece of property, and appreciate
their delicate understanding of our particular
situation.
Fine G. Bedford, Jr.
FGB/ea
enclosure
,1r L`r CMS
+1
oJ&'
rt fi, Lft
M�
14,4
s7A/Eit
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF 'THE CITY OF PEARLAND HELD ON SEPTEMBER 6, 1988, AT
7:30 P. M. IN 713E CITY HALL, 3519 LIBERTY DRIVE, PEARLAND, TEXAS
The meeting was called to order with the following present:
Chairman Leroy Savoie
Vice Chairman Al Lentz
Member Benny Frank
Member James Garner
Member Clyde Starns
Member Mary Starr
Code Enforcement Officer Ernesto Buenrostro
Assistant City Secretary Pat Vaught
Commission Member Helen Beckman was not present, having an excused absence.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Benny Frank, and seconded by Mary Starr, that the Minutes of the
Special Meeting of August 15, 1988, be approved as submitted.
Motion passed 5 to 0, with Clyde Starns abstaining.
NEW BUSINESS
CHANGE IN ORDER OF BUSINESS
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HADDOCK SUBDIVISION, 4.882 ACRES, BEING PART OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY
ONE-HALF OF LOT 90 OF THE GEORGE W. JENKINS SUBDIVISION, W.D.C. HALL LEAGUE, ABSTRACT
70, MARK AND SUZANNE HADDOCK, OWNERS (3989 DIXIE FARM ROAD)
The Commission discussed building setback lines from pipelines and the hold harmless
waiver that must be signed should building be desired closer than the required 100
feet from the pipeline.
Ernesto Buenrostro, Code Enforcement Officer, explained that the original mylars now
reflected a 100' setback line from the pipelines and pipeline easements. He stated
that this plat had gone through the routine review process and that while we do not
have a current up-to-date title report and the owners and lienholders certification,
the lienholder has agreed, by submission of a letter to Mr. Haddock, with the
proceedings and the title has been opened. Therefore, the Staff would recommend
approval contingent upon receipt of an up-to-date title report and certification by
owners and lienholders.
A motion was made by Al Lentz, seconded by Mary Starr, to approve the preliminary
plat of the Haddock Subdivision contingent upon the comments by Mr. Buenrostro.
Motion passed 6 to 0.
FINAL PLAT OF HADDOCK SUBDIVISION, 4.882 ACRES, RFING PART OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY ONE-
HALF OF LOT 90 OF THE GEORGF W. JENKINS SUBDIVISION, W.D.C. HALL LEAGUE, ABSTRACT 70,
MARK AND SUZANNE HADDOCK, OWNERS (3989 DIXIE FARM ROAD)
The Commission discussed setback lines, lack of an approval date by the Drainage
Commission, metes and bounds, and the omission of a dimensional building line arrow
on the plat.
It was moved by Clyde Starns, seconded by Al Lentz, to approve the final plat of
Haddock Subdivision contingent upon the approval date by the Drainage Commission and
the inclusion of the dimensional arrow indicating there is 35' from the building line
to the property line.
There being no additional discussion, the motion passed 6 to 0.
REQUEST OF FINE BEDFORD FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
Mr. Fine Bedford explained he wished to purchase a piece of property behind his
residence which according to him was landlocked and if purchased by him would create
a buffer for him and his neighbors against future commercial development. He is
requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance because the cost would be
prohibitive to proceed as called for due to the size of the land, its usefulness for
anything else and its proximity to residences.
The Commission discussed the ownership of the property, governing state and local
laws in a directive from Interim City Attorney Robert Talton, intended use of the
property, and current zoning of the property.
It was moved by Benny Frank, seconded by Clyde Starns, to deny the variance due to
the fact that Mr. Bedford did not actually own the property and because the Ordinance
states that platting costs cannot be considered a hardship.
Motion passed 6 to 0.
PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED IMPACT FEES AND UPDATED 10 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN BY
CHARDS KALKOMEY OF RFRNARD JOHNSON, INC.
Messrs. Charles Kalkomey and Art Storey of Bernard Johnson, Inc. reviewed with the
Advisory Committee methods of figuring costs and the location and type of proposed
capital improvement projects and the ten year master plans for the City.
It was moved by Al Lentz, seconded by Mary Starr, to accept the report of Bernard
Johnson, Inc. regarding impact fees and capital improvements.
Motion passed 6 to 0.
Mr. Storey advised the Committee of the necessity of sending a letter to the City
Council of their finding within five business days before the public hearing on the
19th of September.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 P. M.
Minutes approved as submitted and/or corrected this day of
A. D., 1988.
ATTEST:
AssistantCity Secretaf
--a
chairman,///� /% /
ULiL'-•rL l
Cfluj p@aalland
P. O. Box 2068 • Peorland, Texos 77588-2068 • 485-2411
September 8, 1988
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Pearland
Pearland, Texas 77581
Dear Mayor and Council:
Tom Reid, Mayor
James E. Bost, Councilmember
Dennis Frouenberger. Councilmember
Richard Tetens, Councilmember
Charles Mock. Councilmember
Stello Roberts. Councilmember
Ronald J. Wicker, City Manager
The Capital Improvements Advisory Committee, in a
regular meeting held on September 6, 1988, reviewed the pro-
posed impact fees and updated 10 year capital improvements
plan as presented by Messrs. Art Storey and Charles Kalkomey
of Bernard Johnson, Inc.
Discussed were capital improvement costs, methods of
figuring capital recovery fees, and location of existing and
proposed capital improvement projects.
It was moved by Al Lentz, seconded by Mary Starr, to
accept the the recommendations and proposals as submitted by
Bernard Johnson, Inc. Motion passed 6 to 0.
The Advisory Committee is submitting this for Council's
consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Leroy Savo e (j?L)
Chairman
LS/EB:pv
DRAFT
PUBLIC HEARING ON
ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEES
City of Pearland
September 19, 1988
Testimony by Bernard Johnson Incorporated
Mr. Mayor and Members of City Council:
I am Arthur Storey with Bernard Johnson Incorporated, and my testimony in this hearing
is as follows:
This is the second of two public hearings required by the provisions of SB336 for cities
engaged in facilities planning that could provide for the adoption of impact fees for capital
recovery. It is reasonable to point out that the process of facilities planning to identify
needed capital projects is useful, whether or not partial payment for these projects is
anticipated using revenues collected through such fees, and that facilities planning has
been a major part of my firm's work in this project.
The purposes of this hearing are to present the results of our facilities planning and to
receive comment on the adoption of a 10-Year Capital Improvements Plan and the
imposition of an impact fee. However, it is important to recap what has transpired to
lead the City to this point.
On June 20, 1987, Texas Senate Bill 336 (SB336) was passed and signed into law. This
legislation relates to the financing of capital improvements by political subdivisions
through the use of "impact fees." The intent of the law is to ensure that these impact
fees are collected and used only for the construction of improvements to serve new
development.
At a Council Meeting of the City of Pearland on January 11, 1988, the Council entered
into an engineering services agreement with Bernard Johnson Incorporated (BJI) to
"conduct a comprehensive facilities planning program, a major purpose of which is
qualification of capital recovery fees pursuant to" SB336. Since the City had an existing
Capital Maintenance Recovery Fees Ordinance in effect, the fees had to comply with the
requirements of SB336 if the City was going to continue to use the collection of these
fees to finance water and sanitary sewerage improvements.
The first step taken to begin to fulfill the requirements of SB336 was to research and
gather information on existing conditions and facilities in Pearland. We collected data
on existing land uses, existing water production and distribution facilities, and existing
' sanitary sewerage collection and treatment facilities. An economic analysis and projection
was made by a professional research firm to assist the planning team in predicting future
needs. Concurrently, City Council appointed an Advisory Committee to join the planning
team.
Existing land use was determined by in -the -field observations. This was supplemented by
Land Use Maps presented in the Comprehensive Development Plan prepared for the City
in 1978. The results of the existing land use investigation are shown on the two colored
maps, labeled Exhibit A-1 and Exhibit A-2. These maps include both the existing City
Limits and the City's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ).
Data on existing water facilities was collected from existing City system maps and As -
Built Drawings from the more recent developments in the area. Input from the City's
Administration and Staff was extremely valuable to the completion of this task. The
existing water system within the City and the City's ETJ are shown on Exhibits B-1 and
B-2.
Information on the existing sanitary sewerage system was collected in the same manner
as the data on the water system. Again, City Administration and Staff input was very
important to the completion of this task. Exhibits C-1 and C-2 depict the current City
sanitary sewerage system and the systems within the City's ETJ.
As mentioned previously, BJI commissioned an Economic/Market Data Report, which was
done by CDS Research, Inc. Data was gathered in seven categories: Employment/Econo-
mic Base, Demographics, Population, Land Use Statistics, Public Education, Community
Facilities, and Major Thoroughfare Improvements.
The second step undertaken by BJI was to develop the future service needs of the area.
This involved analyzing all of the existing data collected with respect to the projected
population growth in the planning area. Several meetings were_ held with the City
Administration and Staff to discuss areas of growth for Pearland and its ETJ. BJI also
met with the Advisory Committee to gather input on development patterns in the planning
area.
A public hearing was held on May 16, 1988 to seek public input on projected 10-Year
Land Use Assumptions and future service connections. As a result of the comments
received at the hearing and additional comments from the Advisory Committee, significant
revisions were made to the original Land Use Assumptions. A second public hearing on
the modified assumptions was held on August 8, 1988. The revised future service
connection numbers for the planning area are shown on the two maps labeled Exhibit D-
1 and Exhibit D-2, dividing the planning area into 16 subareas. After testimony was
received at the second hearing, City Council adopted the Land Use Assumptions on
August 8, 1988, directed us to proceed with facilitiesplanning and impact fee calculations ,
and called this public hearing.
The third step in the process was to develop a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) to
provide water and sanitary sewer service to the future service connections. This was done
for only those areas which are capable of being served by City utilities. The planning
process not only looked at the 10-year plan, but also at an ultimate development plan for
the major water system and sanitary sewerage system expansions of the City. Exhibit E
and Exhibit F show the future water and sanitary sewerage facilities as depicted by the
red and green colored lines. These maps represent the proposed Master Capital
Improvements Plan for these two utilities.
The proposed Master Plan shown on the Sewerage Facilities map takes into consideration
planning done by the City to construct two new plants. One of these is on Hickory
Slough in the northwest quadrant of the City. The other is near Cloverfield Airport on
Cowart Creek. A third new treatment plant is shown for the southwest part of the City.
-e- The proposed Master Plan shown on the Water Facilities map —represents a system -
developed through an extensive computer modeling effort to analyze system demands and
pressures. As a result of the modeling, many future lines were decreased in size from
a previous water system master plan done for the City. BJI's work with the model will
save the taxpayers significant costs for water system improvements in the future, without
sacrificing water service or fire protection characteristics.
• The facilities colored in red on the two maps represent the proposed 10-Year CIP. This
plan as is, or as amended by City Council, will be a significant portion of any impact
fees which the City may consider to adopt.
The 10-Year CIP for the sanitary sewerage system contains three sewer line extension.
These are:
1. G.A.P./F.M. Highway 518 Sewer Line - This line extension starts at the Barry
Rose Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) and follows the proposed G.A.P.
Parkway route to F.M. Highway 518.
2. Old Alvin Road Sewer Line - This line extension connects to an existing 12-inch
sanitary sewer line at a point approximately 0.3 mile south of Walnut. The
proposed sewer line would continue southerly along Old Alvin Road to John Lizer
Road, and then turn easterly along John Lizer Road.
3. High School Sewer Line - This line extension connects to an existing 10-inch
sanitary sewer at the intersection of Mary's Creek Lane West and Shadycrest
Drive. The line would then proceed northwesterly along an extension of Mary's
Creek Lane West to a proposed road along the southeasterly side of the new high
school property. The sewer line would then turn southwesterly along this new
road.
There are eight proposed projects in the 10-Year CIP for the water system. These are`
1. Green Tee Pumping Station - A 200,000 gallon ground storage tank and booster
pump station to be built at the northeast end of the Green Tee development.
2. Yost Boulevard Water Line - An 8-inch water line tie between two existing 8-
inch water lines.
3. Riverwalk Water Line - A 6-inch connection to an 8-inch line at the southwest
corner of Riverwalk Subdivision.
4. County Road 253/County Road 131 Water Line - A 16-inch water line from Dixie
Farm Road along County Road 253 and County Road 131, with a 12-inch
connection to Nasawood Subdivision.
5. High School Water Line - An 8-inch and a 10-inch water line between John Lizer
Road, State Highway 35 and Mary's Creek Lane West to serve the area around the
new high school.
6. Harkey Road Water Line - A 16-inch water line along Harkey Road from F.M.
Highway 518 to County Road 408.
7. O'Day Road/Hatfield Road Water Line - A 12-inch water line between O'Day
Road and Hatfield Road at the north end of the City.
8. Hickory Slough Water Plant - A well, a ground storage tank and a booster pump
station in the northwest quadrant of the City.
These water and sanitary sewerage projects, as presented tonight, represent the proposed
10-Year Capital Improvements Plan. Once these projects are placed in the 10-Year CIP,
the next step is to determine what portion of the projects, if any, is to serve future
development in the next 10 years. The costs of those portions are -used to calculate the -
maximum impact fee which can be assessed by the City according to the statute. Existing
facilities built and paid for by the City which have future capacity incorporated in the
sizing of the facility are also eligible for consideration in impact fee calculations.
Table 1, Sanitary Sewerage Impact Fee Calculations, summarizes the calculations used to
compute the various components of the sewer impact fee. Other exhibits will show how
these fees apply to particular service areas. The two existing treatment plants have
capacity for future development, and appropriate costs are shown for providing service
for the next 10 years. The three sewer line projects listed earlier are shown with their
appropriate costs. Because this plan must be administered once adopted, and also must
be updated at least every three years, an eligible cost of Program Administration is
included.
The Barry Rose WWTP had an initial construction cost of $2,094.00. Of the 7,029 total
service units (S.U.) that the plant can serve, 1,723 S.U. will occur in the next 10 years.
This proportionate cost is $513,026, which represents a cost of $297 per S.U. The
Longwood WWTP's initial construction cost was $1,672,000. It can ultimately serve 5,380
S.U., of which 589 S.U. will occur in the next 10 years. This proportionate cost is
$183,060, or $305 per S.U.
The estimated cost of the G.A.P./F.M. Highway 518 sewer line is $251,405. A total of
517 S.U. is planned for future service by this line. Of these, 225 S.U. are projected to
occur within the next 10 years. The proportionate cost is $109,412, or $486 per S.U.
The estimated cost of the Old Alvin Road sewer line is $186,120, and the projected total
number S.U. in the future is 210. There are 86 S.U. projected to occur during the next
10 years. This proportionate cost comes to $76,221, which results in an impact fee
assessment of $886 per S.U.
The High School sewer line is estimated to cost $87,120. Of the 320 S.U. projected to-,_
be served by this line in the future 108 S.U., are projected to occur in the next 10 years.
The proportionate cost is $29,403, or $272 per S.U.
Program Administration is estimated at $45,000, which results in an impact fee of $19
per S.U.
Table 2, Sanitary Sewerage Impact Fee Summary, and Exhibit G summarize the
development of the impact fees for the sanitary sewerage facilities. As illustrated by the
different colors on the map, the planning area was divided into five service areas. Area
A is that area which is served by the Barry Rose WWTP. The proposed sewer impact fee
for this area is the plant fee plus the administration fee, or $316 per S.U. Area B
represents the service area for the G.A.P./F.M. Highway 518 sewer line. It is also served
by the Barry Rose WWTP. Therefore, the proposed fee for this area is composed of the
plant fee, the sewer line fee, and the administration fee, totaling $802 per S.U. Area C
represents the Old Alvin Road sewer line service area. The proposed sewer impact fee
for Area C is comprised of Barry Rose WWTP fee, the line fee and the administration
fee, which total $1,202 per S.U. The service area for the High School sewer line is
shown as Area D. This area is served by the Longwood WWTP. The proposed impact
fee for this area is the sum of the plant fee, the line fee, and the administration fee,
which total $596 per S.U. The remainder of the planning area which has sewer service
is designated as Area E. This area is also served by the Longwood WWTP, and the
proposed impact fee is composed of the plant fee and the administration fee only. This
totals $324 per S.U.
Table 3, Water Impact Fee Calculations Plant Facilities, and Table 4, Water Impact Fee
Calculations Water Lines, illustrate the costs for both the existing and proposed water
plant and water line facilities as they pertain the calculation of impact fees. As with the
sanitary sewerage facilities, certain existing facilities were constructed and paid for by
the City and have the capacity to provide service to new development. Therefore, they
are eligible to be included in the impact fees.
There are three existing plant facilities that were identified as having excess capacity
that would be utilized during the next 10 years for service to new development. These
were the Liberty Street Water Well, the Liberty Street Booster Pump Station and the
existing three elevated storage tanks in the City. The total construction cost of these
facilities was $1,061,265. The proportionate cost for providing service for new
development in the next 10 years is $275,651. Based on the 2,544 S.U. projected to be
added to the system during this period of time, the impact fee per S.U. is $108.
There are several water lines which have been built by the City during recent years which
were not only built for existing needs, but for future needs as well. These lines are
located on Dixie Farm Road, F.M. Highway 518, Magnolia Road/John Lizer Road, Hatfield
Road, O'Day Road, Old Alvin Road and Woody Lane. As shown on Table 4, the total
construction cost of these lines was $999,243. Due to the nature of the operation of a
water system, these lines have some impact on the ability to provide service to almost any
part of the City. Therefore, the total ultimate number of S.U. for the current system
(15,687) was used to prorate the cost of these lines. The projected 2,544 S.U. in the
next 10 years has a proportionate cost of $160,211, or $62 per S.U.
Unlike the sanitary sewerage system, not all of the proposed improvements in the CIP are
eligible to be included in the calculated impact fees. The reason for this is that their
capacities are not required to serve new development during the next 10 years, or they
are needed for existing development. The Green Tee Pumping Station, for example, is
being built by the City to solve low pressure problems in the area for existing develop-
ment, and therefore is not eligible to be included in the impact fees. The well at the
Hickory Slough Water Plant will be partially needed for new development during the next
10 years, but the ground storage tank and booster pump station are not required for new
development. The 8-inch water line on Yost Boulevard is needed for circulation in the
area to better serve existing development, but has no significant impact on the future`
service needs of the City.
Therefore, the only proposed water plant facility that is included in the impact fee
calculations is the Hickory Slough Water Well. As shown in Table 3, its estimated
construction cost is $180,000. Based on the portion of the well needed for new
development during the next 10 years, the proportionate cost is $136,620, or $53 per S.U.
Table 4 shows the five proposed water line projects (High School, County Road
253/County Road 231, Harkey Road, O'Day Road/Hatfield Road and Riverwalk) have an
estimated cost of $424,925. Since these lines are not needed for existing development,
the total ultimate number of S.U. projected for these lines is 8,146. Based on the
projected 10-year number of 2,544 S.U., the proportionate cost of these lines is $132,704,
which results in an impact fee of $52 per S.U.
Table 5, Water Impact Fee Sumary, gives the components of the proposed water impact
fee. The existing water plant facilities fee is $108 per S.U. The fee for the proposed
water plant facility is $53 per S.U. The existing water line facilites add $62 per S.U. to
the overall water fee. The fee for the proposed water line facilities is $52 per S.U. As
with the sanitary sewerage system, the entire program must be administered and updated
at least every three years. Therefore, a nomimal fee of $17 per S.U. is included for
Program Administration. As shown, the total proposed water impact fee is $292 per S.U.
In order to relate not only residential development to non-residential development, but
also different types of non-residential development to each other, a method to compare
the demands from each was required by the statute and is displayed on Table 6. A service
unit is defined as a single family residential housing unit. Population numbers indicate
the average occupancy of a single family residence in Pearland is 3.2 people. Based on
an average wastewater flow of 100 gallons per person per day, the flow from a service
unit is 320 gallons per day.
Information was gathered on wastewater flows from other types of developments in the
Gulf Coast area. Table 6, Service Unit Factors, gives the equivalent number of service
units for many other types of development. Since the statute requires that the City
adopt a table of service unit equivalents to administer the assessment of impact fees,
Table 6 is proposed for that purpose.
In order to project the number of service units that would occur during the next 10 years,
an assumption of the type of commercial developments that would occur was made. As
shown in Table 7, Commercial Service Units 10-Year Projection, 110 commercial
connections were projected to occur during the next 10 years. The table shows the
various types of this commercial development and their equivalent number of residential
service units. For planning purposes, the averageof four S.U. per commercial connection
was used. If impact fees are assessed by the City, each new connection to the system
will be analyzed using Table 6, and the fee calculated accordingly.
To tie all of this together, Table 8, Impact Fee Calculation Examples, illustrates how the
proposed water and sanitary sewerage fees would be calculated for new connections. Two
single family residences and one commercial development are used for the examples.
The first example deals with a property owner who owns a vacant lot at 2716 Glendale
Street and wants to build a home. From Table 6, we see that a single family residence
equals 1 S.U. per dwelling unit. For computing the sanitary sewerage fee, Exhibit G
shows that the property is in Service Area A. Table 2 states that the impact fee for
sewer in Area A is $316 per S.U., which means that the total sewer impact fee is $316.
Table 5 shows that the water impact fee is $292 per S.U., or $292 for this home.
Therefore, the total impact fee is for both water and sewer is $608.
The second example pertains to a residential lot in a new subdivision --on John Lizer Road,.. -
which would have sewer service provided by the Old Alvin Road sewer line shown in the
10-Year CIP. From the first example, a single family residence has a service unit factor
of 1. For the sewer impact fee, Exhibit G indicates that the lot would be in Service Area
C. Table 2 shows that the fee for Area C is $1,202 per S.U. Table 5 shows that the
water impact fee is $292 per S.U. Therefore, the total impact fee for water and sewer
for this house is $1,494.
Example 3 deals with a fast food restaurant at the corner of FM Highway 518 and Liberty
Drive. The restaurant will have seating for 50 customers. Table 6 indicates that a
development such as this has a service unit factor of 0.047 S.U. per seat. This would
have an equivalent of 2.35 S.U. Exhibit G indicates that the development is in Service
Area E. This has a sewer impact fee of $324 per S.U. as shown in Table 2, which equals
a sewer impact fee of $761.40. The water impact fee is still $292 per S.U., which equals
$686.20 for this development. Therefore, the total water and sanitary sewer impact fee
is $1,447.60.
We are availableto discuss the elements of the CIP and the derivation of the impact fees.
This concludes our prepared testimony.
a>
a>
V 01 O 00 CODti -
CV c er 00 N
CO 0 N..i Cs)0 00
O CO mi.N a' co
.Co)-� CC)0 N eY
1n . ...
u, cc CO
N in N CO 0
.r
..q
N_
M
N
al 0
.fir — 0
N 1
O M 10 N CI
t- 1A
O O
O
U c CO.0
00
a
i a
10 0 0 1
0 N N i
et ...- -
.. 00 t.:.
N 001.4
00 CO
.b c
e
s e a = — c E
o b 2a �.a Sa E
y to°� 3 Q I.
• CX 3
co 0 0 Q CE b C% b0 0
to
w CO 0 0 s ft
N
uo
00
E-.
SANITARY SEWERAGE IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
v
CO O.
E O M CO et cn
a)
EJ N
O
F
c
0
.415
03
b0)
ai — —0) — -
c ix.
E
b
a
a)
gy
C
O CO CO N Vim' CO0N 0
CA N N Cr3 CS N CVI
c)
CIO If)
er
er
in
N
co a� p O lA
CO Wik
c U� 0) ., � N
to
Z
«�
U L o cn `� r- to a
Q u,
enU n N
-
m w
U Z _ 1 E E E
• 0. 0 0 0 0
CO
0 0
LL1 "" M o
¢ ••
3
ty 0 Mu)
80 N co4.
t-0 OOC CO
H
Liberty St. Water Well
Elevated Storage Tanks
er
er
If)
N
a
If)
ti
E
a
0
O
0
0
O
0.
00
E-
0 •
Water Line
N
CO
CO
C
In
O V' O V' In O O M
O C O 00 CO to G
M Q' R. CO O CO O N
O d" O c9 N O 00 O
el' It) .- N M M CO al
b
a)
0
0
N
to
CO
rl
O In In In
Q� Ca
- � • N N
N 'a'
ti
WATER IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
.b
4)
0
O.
0
0.
C
2
..a
4)
o3
N
SERVICE UNIT FACTORS
.r
N
N N .r C" ) .-- V'
0 CD N IA CD
N
n
...i C ) V' ..- NO ...- O CD O
(_] 00 N N N 0 LA 0 C") O O c') O CA en 00 00 co O 0 "- N 11') 0
0 Z 0 V' V CD 0 N Cl CA 0 0 0 0 C") 0 N N CO CO 0 0 CD N 0
5 66666c6.c0 666666666666666
E—
cWn Z
F c4 OC W E- w >- w E.- E- E- E- a E- 0 W 00 E- CL 0 E-
O--^ZOZ<Z <<OOr. ZI4WZZ0W �O0
Z 0 ¢ ¢ < 0 < m < 4) c:a O O as < a� >- < < O co 00 O 0
�.v�,�4,.1 .3 Nis. �'�a °�v E'er acs,
< << 0 a
as a
a a a
cn
Cn
U Q
5
U w z
5(nE4
c(i)w6 Vtzl U
EL. inx 5i
zZz �oo��� �� z
>" -- Z
ZQZ c�o� aW om ��
oa U zz o
==¢.F3E- �. ozczU >-000-i'-
(I)CID oi"
oa. >-x>-00-www± �¢za oQa¢azQ �
0.� =� 333avG¢Uoo�iZ VV)ic(nV.F.)awO
>- Ya¢C4C4WWZ>-fYWtntno¢cr)E-Z
F0 mCOma01000UU U0U00004.C¢("0===2
w
on
E
— I1, N En
c') N m cV ~
N C O t`+ — O 0 CO O I'.co O N O c'� O O O O O O — 40' O O e' th ^" ..4 .� O O Q
CS)O �• O N t`� C- O t` O O "4 O O O O O O 0 0 0 C)
O O M O O O O— O .. " 666666,66666 Q
a• >
Q w
ELlv� `
o<
O
O 5
0E.wOVE-E-E•-FFF E E.E-E.E-•E-aLt]FFw E"'Z
Q<00<< UQOZ Q^.
O a Z Z Z Z Z Z w w 0 0 w w 2 Q w 0" z
r Q
a�a�ZZZZZZ aa� to
�]
2 Oj
���Q¢ Q< �a�m2a p33, a cn 0
000000
.3 Z
U w
z2
Z z .00
0 aNzv
U�-- 3F
0 2
3 Q
0E-w0
Ow Qacn nQG=
pQ0. z a U¢
av F ¢ww
Zw°w¢cn w0 ooaozz 0== ¢t.ia
oa
°2,= .a.�w
w.)=.,p4w4Vvza zz¢¢
CD><zQ. ;00 �O U>
wz ..jc600Zo wOo w�0.O FF
00 w
=ovowc�ic�wrzar��.3 g.0=0 .cn fx
m �FUUUUUUQQ E�aoF ooa�
z
zw 0¢IL)Lt)wwww�ta"LI"4"_3OO Ew-F=¢ aC]L1E1.¢
MUF.° �A00000� ¢oo�¢¢aX <
zo--=ww
a.oc�c`4c fiupcnv,E--�E_-33 C4.�cici4
zoa.aaaaaaa�
INDIVIDUAL
F
w
0
0
F
u; Cr; t 00 Cr;
w
UF,-
>
az
LLID
cn
N a0 O O O O 0 0 V O O O O$ 0 0 0 CD O O
IA Cl er 1A C! 00 •-4 M er c0 co er O O O N Q) in O
.~-+ N .N. N t� M o CO !") O; N cc; N N M M N. 1 .-r ll)
I- c4 in — N
wz _
UM N
upO— 0 --- O CD O ti O N
> N t- 0 M 0 0 M 0 M CD 0 0 ^" M co -. NI. O er 0
cd I-. er er O N N O O O O o0 0O O O N N O .-+ O O O O
cn Z
O O O cc;. O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O
O
w w
U¢ w er O .-• CD O O O O N N O O O O O O O O O O
a 0 in ►A 0 M OCD O N- CD 0 I in 0 kt M
fn a' M N M 0 Q er N
E-- a¢
z
Dz
o
uo
I- 5E4 E- ac w t--E•-�U¢z¢ 2O E-E-tE-�V
w.1 cwnc z UUd.¢amcncwndo44w wmcow(nndcwn2
a.
1- ¢a
p
O co
U 2 CD 1n N Co) V N N h N CD N N -� N NI,-`. + . N O
~ I
..r
z
TYPE OF DEVEL
co 0
O z
ca U <
cla 4- ww v
a
� • a �� (�
oa.,.1 <
z° 'Ez2�Rowe .a
333UUzw=�0
�OQ5-E-'OO.1E..ZZO¢
oWznwwU°51¢g avcz z¢QQ x0C
w¢¢U vFE_wi..�zwDJ;
N5 adm�vinvw'75¢¢8.)atxrwzy-cntn0<E-W I.
¢w¢UQ=Z
mmUUUUU000ZZOWWc4w3
EXAMPLE 2
M M
Lra). co
Lt. 4)
Lz.
o as c. co
a. C3.
E
LL
C O O a)
v5up3E°
CD N CC
.-• 09
Co) N CD
49 49 49
V
Ca.
M
C V) CA
3coN
— 1° • c%7;
..a • P. K K
0.
Q C
rz., v) u5 u5 v5
.....1 .., ..,
M
V U u
1-0 a3 0.
C. CO 4
E E E
) a a co
3 o
v5cn3
EXAMPLE 3
Lt. Lt.
u u
0 a,
03 0.
E
Lc.
as
0. 3 to
t-- crJ
ROBERT E. TALTON
1
308 So. S -AVER
PASADENA, TEXAS 77506
PHONE (7 1 3) 475-9314
September 6, 1988
City of Pearland
Attn: Ernie Buenrostro, Jr.
Deputy Building Official
P. 0. Box 2068
Pearland, Texas 77588-2068
Re: Carter/Bedford Property Split
Dear Ernie:
Pursuant to our conversation regarding the above matter, it
is my opinion that pursuant to the Local Government Code, Chapter
212 regulating plat requirements and our City Ordinances under
the definition of subdivision, it is my opinion that there needs
to be a plat in this matter.
As you are aware, our subdivision Ordinance, Section 27-2
under definition of a subdivision sets out that "a subdivision is
two or more parts of lots or sites for the purpose, whether
immediate or future, of the sale or division of ownership".
Furthermore, there is a procedure set out in order to grant a
variance. Should the Planning and Zoning Committee grant a
variance there must be a finding of the items listed in Section
27-3A3 under variances.
It is my understanding that there may be this request.
Based upon the information that I have been furnished at this
time, it is my opinion that a plat is required and that it will
be up to the Planning and Zoning Commission to either grant or
not grant a variance.
Sincerely yours,
Robert E. Talton
C35:16
cc: Ron Wicker
Innovative Concepts In Business, Inc.
August 30, 1988
Planning & Zoning
City of Pearland
3519 Liberty Drive
Pearland, Texas 77588
Gentlemen:
My wife and I own the property in Pearland, Texas
known by the street address of 2020 North Galveston
Avenue with all improvements located thereon. We
intend to purchase a small narrow track of vacant,
unimproved property directly behind ours and
currently owned by Kenneth & Carol Carter. An
illustrative and not scaled map is enclosed for your
convenience in ascertaining existing property owners
in the area and their relationship to this proposed
sale. As you may note, the property in question is
identified as "Landlocked Sale Of Property" and
shaded for recognition. This long narrow strip of
land comprises approximately one (1) acre.
We certainly recognize that laws (ordinances) are
promulgated for the health, benefit, and general
welfare of all citizens and we attempt to abide by
these rules of society. All laws must necessarily
be interpreted within the spirit in which they were
drawn, and an undue hardship on any individual would
require an examination of the specific aspect of the
law creating such hardship, and, fortunately the
writers of these laws foresaw the need for excep-
tions (variances) which would exempt those hardships
from being enforced.
It is our opinion that the sale of the above
described property falls within this exception pro-
vision of your ordinance requiring surveying,
platting, sub -dividing, and permits. The intended
use of this acquisition shall be for two purposes,
i.e..
(1) Additional yard and garden space with a
large outbuilding for storage of miscellaneous
tools, equipment, and personal items.
(2) Prevention of the establishment of some
type of commercial venture directly behind and
abutting six (6) residential properties:
1204B DIXIE FARM RD. • HOUSTON, TEXAS 77089 • (713) 484-9262
a. Williams
b. Desmond
c. McFarland
d. Partridge
e. Bedford
f. Nichols, Jr.
Because the Pearland Ordinance would require, if
implemented, the surveying, platting, sub -dividing,
and permitting of this small narrow piece of
property, we are told that the cost of such survey-
ing, platting, sub -dividing, and permitting would
approximate 27% of the value of the land sale. This
should and must be considered an undue hardship
especially when combined with the fact that the
property purchased is landlocked.
With all consideration we hereby apply for a
'variance' to the Planning & Zoning Board for the
above described piece of property, and appreciate
their delicate understanding of our particular
situation.
Fine G. Bedford, Jr.
FGB/ea
enclosure
CAMS
i
i /✓
�q
�
/
j
/
.7
/'
j.
J
•
+1
�in�nl D
e A�;�/tnlD
M° F
i
j /I
rho e 0
/ 1..
i
L)f'jII41-
CEO
�L5
.,
0°N
®RANG,( S7/'5Et