Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2003-12-08 Special, Work Session 12/08/03 2095 STATE OF TEXAS )( CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD )( COUNTIES OF GALVESTON/HARRIS )( DECEMBER 8, 2003 )( ~ MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FRIENDSWOOD CITY COUNCIL THAT WAS HELD ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 8,2003 AT 6:30 PM AT FRIENDSWOOD CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS,910 S. FRIENDSWOOD DRIVE, FRIENDSWOOD,TEXAS,WITH THE FOLLOWING PRESENT CONSTITUTfNG A QUORUM: MAYOR KIM BRIZENDINE MAYOR PRO-TEM JERRY ERICSSON COUNCILMEMBER LAURA EWING COUNCILMEMBER TRACY GOZA COUNCILMEMBER DAVID J. H. SMfTH COUNCILMEMBER SHANNON KIMMEL COUNCILMEMBER MEL MEASELES CITY MANAGER RON COX CITY SECRETARY DELORIS MCKENZIE CITY ATTORNEY LOREN SMITH WORK SESSION Mayor Brizendine calied the meeting to order. Discussion was held with the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the Development Process Steering Committee recommendations in regards to commercial site plan approvals. A question and answer session took place between Council, Planning and Zoning Commission Chair Bob Bertrand and Co-Chair Tom Burke. Councilmember Ericsson stated to leave the way it is with input from citizens, Councilmember Measeles stated he supports and leave the way it is with input from citizens. City Manager Ron Cox stated public input F_____ comes when zone is established, Public Hearing process,only comes back before the public for a specific use permit or rezoning, subdivision does not provide for citizen input, if Staff handled would not be a matter of a public meeting, in Staff's view public has already spoken. Co-Chair Tom Burke stated if goes to Planned Unit Developmenf, site plans go with Specific Use-PUD all Specific Use Permit's have site plans. Councilmember Smith stated Specific Use Permit is a zoning issue, tied to that process, plat is tied to it, it is a zoning issue, addressed pubiicly and site plan is married to it. Planning and Zoning Chair Bob Bertrand stated zoning issues that require specific use permits require public input. Co-Chair Tom Burke stated the public cannot give input to site plan review without rezoning, with Planning and Zoning Commission review gives public awareness as to the look of the community. Councilmember Kimmel stated in response to Councilmember Ericsson's concern about input from citizen, if goes to Steff it is not taking away from the public. Councilmember Goza stated there are four issues, a lot of time and effort has gone into this review, no place for public input, developers having uncertainties coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission,why not allow Staff to pre-approve and give a Staff report to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Councilmember Ericsson stated give a list to Council to keep informed, in theory it would work but in the past, it has not. P&Z Chair Bob Bertrand stated you couid have a situation where Staff could provide for a report, the Planning and Zoning Commission members may have issues with the approved plan and it would be setting up for a confiict, whereas dealing in front of the public, gives opportunity for public to know what is being planned, situation is public venue not input. Councilmember Goza stated presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission in public hearing and looking for errors, could be proactive in looking for future plans, development, sees need for public input but as far as a developer in front of the Planning and Zoning 12/08/03 2096 Commission we are misleading if coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission leads them to believe it will make a change. Co-Chair Tom Burke stated public is the Planning and Zoning Commission, what is gained by commission review, developer wants approval without revisions,when it was decided to remove the Planning and Zoning Commission from preliminary review and developer comes before Commission for final it is perceived that the Commission is delaying if ask them to fix something, there can be some uncertainties. Councilmember Ewing stated believes that we need to keep the process as is, this is not a statement that _. .. - Staff cannot handle, what sets the City apart from other cities is the use of volunteers, community involved with volunteers, Kevin Holland, past chair of the Development Review Committee, committee made up of citizens, reviewed recommendation of previous committee, feel good about Staff, part of reason brought before Commission and Council, feel that with information gained from outside organizations, some uncertainties, some concerns, concerns is it an unambiguity of Commission, wants to encourage Economic Development part of why recommended, thought would increase expedience. Councilmember Kimmel stated public input is always needed, public input sometimes puts City in situation, if against proposal,will nat require Public Hearing. He stated when he served as liaison to the Planning and Zoning Commission he watched site plans come and go with not a lot of contention, maybe one out of 14, Co-Chair Tom Burke is one of the finest, sees a lot that others do not see, what will happen when not on Commission, peopie make mistakes. Councilmember Goza stated issue of clarity. Kevin Holland comments, in 2002 City ordered report from CDS Consulting, one of recommendation, hearing from a lot of sources, need to hear from them. Co-Chair Tom Burke stated a number of people comment to him about the process, do not want to put their name on it,does make it conclusive to him, Chairman makes an extreme effort to be courteous in meeting and asks if all okay, then leaves meeting and is unhappy to process, Councilmember Goza stated look at one year time, next Development Review Committee formed, feels given a long time, made many improvements to Staff more than capable of handling it, very few issues not caught by Staff, look at the code and rules to cover any mistakes. Councilmember Measeles stated uncertainty as to what does this mean. Mayor Brizendine stated main cancern from developer side, uncertainty after all issues of site plan met, making additional changes after Staff has made meeting pertinent ordinances, how would Commission respond. Chair Bob Bertrand stated when plat goes to Staff which does a good job, sometimes things overlooked, however some aspects overlooked or not discussed that go with the quality of the site plan, Commission would bring up these issues for discussion, possibly safety, neighboring subdivision, lighting issues,dumpsters, if applicant chooses not to go along with suggestions, there are some things that the Commission deems serious, discuss further with develbper,feels process intimidates people appearing before Commission,try to bring aspects of the City into the discussion, of the opinion have not seen unreasonable or frivolous suggestions, one of the City of late is ___ prbmoting quality, as far as uncertainty, after going through process with Staff, if Staff has comments to developer before coming before Commission, does cause uncertainty, uncertainty from neighbors from the area to be developed. Co-Chair Tom Burke stated think hard what zoning ordinance is and minimum that has to be met, Staff works hard to be sure minimum is met, 23 citations where quantative judgments or decisions are supposed to be made by Commission, planning examples that have come before Commission, example of safety issues. Councilmember Goza stated thinks Council could be proactive on the 23 citations as noted. Counciimember Measeles stated uncertainty is stili going to be there if Staff has same approval,would not be any difference between Commission or Staff. Co-Chair Tom Burke stated should unfairness be in City offices or should be.in the daylight. Councilmember Kimmel stated example that TxDOT does not look at ingress and egress in back of. property only on roadway, asked about a memorandum dated November from the Commission, Councilmember Goza stated uncertainties are not necessarily with Staff or Commission, probiem is going to the Commission where they are allowed to adjust certain things, costs builder for adjustments, causes delays due to re-engineering, re-doing contracts, need to be pro-active at the beginning, Mayor Brizendine stated that one could argue that it may be more proactive to have the Commission involved earlier on,.possibly at the Pl,anning and Zoning Commission representative involved with the Staff review,this idea of segregating the two, but still having them is relevant to keep public involved, having more people review and more input is a good thing, the client is the community, flawed strategy taking out citizen process, flawed,does not work, the other thing that concerns the Mayor that somehow we reached this certainly that for 12/08/03 2097 the Commission to change to make a recommendation is a negative, understanding and aware of the boundaries and issues that effect the citizenry, inherent right that citizens be aware of all that we put before them, it is the right thing to be proactive,to let them know when we are going to make decisions that will affect them, wilt have an opportunity for a public forum to vote on issues and will go to an ordinance. ..�.,_ Councilmember Smith stated by being new, not comfortabie making a decision next Monday night, process that has been discussed is a healthy one to enable to learn from, have some questions and comments to understand a little better, not issue of ability or capability, perception problem from Developers,will translate into higher costs, ask City Attorney, if having votunteers serving an the Commission, does this suffice, if site plan meets the letter of the law could Developer chalienge it? City Attorney stated yes they could do that, not likely to because of the profit factor, the more black and white ordinances made would that take out the uncertainties. Co-Chair Tom Burke stated a lot of language of the ordinance is not black and white, how can you codify all of judgment calfs? Councilmember Smith stated so based on this who can make these judgments? Co-Chair Tom Burke stated they are qualitative, Commission can call on Staff, has Commission considered reversing process and review site plan before Developer meets with Staff,believes Staff still needs to meet with the Developer first to prepare them to meef with Commission. Mayor Brizendine stated that Councilmember Smith is not comfortable with making a decision at this time, could come to decision should we change it, Mayor Brizendine stated can we move on and place on the agenda for action. Councilmember Goza asked about public input? Mayor Brizendine in favor and in support of public having a high level of awareness. Council concurred they are ready to proceed. City Manager Ron Cox stated a negative process would require a vote of Council to proceed with drafting of ordinance. Discussion was held regarding the Amended Plat Process. City Manager Ron Cox provided clarification and stated there are two issues related to the amendment of plats—Amended Plats and Administrative Plats. Although these terms are confusing,they do have definition in both the Subdivision Ordinance and State Law. Amended Plats are defined as those with minor, clerical type errors. These minor errors occur occasionally, but do not affect the plat as a whole. They do not change boundaries, or further subdivide property. They do - . not change the substance and intent of the plat. We believe there was an agreement among Council to approve the recommendations of both the Development Process Steering Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission to authorize Staff to approve amended plats. Administrative Plats are more complex in nature. The P&Z has recommended retaining this step, and Staff agrees. Basically, administrative plat changes are for smaller acreages. The City uses a form of the Administrative platting process called the Short Form. However, these changes that are proposed, afrnosf withcut exception, do increase density. P&Z believed that because an amendment of this type does affect neighboring property owners,there should be a level of additional scrutiny and pubiic communication in the process. Their argument is that increased density brings with it a myriad of issues, including traffic and drainage fhat the public should be aware of. Granted, state law requires the plat to be approved if it meets all the guidelines, but with a Staff level only approval,the public is not necessarily informed untii construction begins. In addition,these amendments are relatively rare. Since late 2000, P&Z has approved ten amended plats, 14 re-plats, and 16 Short Form plats. The volume is not significant. Staff agrees. Council has had a clear policy of being veryjudicious in considering projects that increase density in our community. P&Z and Staff are aware of the intent of Councii,and believe that a review and approval of these type plats at the Staff level would place the Staff in a position of determining density issues throughout fhe City,without giving the public the benefit of the information. Council concurred to move forward. Councifinember Goza stated the rules are ciearly written, Staff is qualified, if all requiremenfs are made why can't Staff approve administrative plat, Staff is capabie of making these approvals. Councilmember Ewing stated administrative stay with Commission and amended plat stay with Staff. Councilmember Ericsson stated no. Councilmember Smith stated he agrees with Counciimember Goza, do not see significant 12/08/03 2098 importance with residential, leave the way it is with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Councilmember Kimmel stated why negative recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission? Kevin Holland addressed his memorandum, discussed fees perception, necessity of dealing with smaller tracts,felt that Staff highly qualified, Staff has more experience in dealing with these issues,does not need to be micro-managed, be consistent, recommend Staff handle the amended plat but felt that administrative review remain with Commission, a lot can go on with administrative plat. Councilmember Kimmel stated he agrees with _..___. Councilmember Goza going to Staff, Councilmember Measeles stated he agrees amended plats go to Staff and administrative plats staying with the Commission. Councilmember Ericsson stated agrees amended plats go to Staff, is time sensitive with administrative plats, not the same as commercial. A motion was made and approved to adjourn at 8:17 PM. � � K �, ayor Kimball W. Brizendine Attest: �l•�� � .� ,� 6�� De oris McKenzie, TRMC City Secretary