Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 2010-11-15 SpecialMINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING & A REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 159 2010 7:OOPM COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL 910 S. FRIENDSWOOD DRIVE FRIENDSW00% TEXAS JOINT WORK SESSION 1. The Joint Work Session was called to order at 7:22pm with the following people in attendance: Chairman Kevin Holland Commissioner Mark Tibbitts Commissioner David O'Farrell Commissioner Jim Nye Mona Miller, City Planner Morad Kabiri, Director of CDD Frank Manigold, Dep. Director of CDD 2. Discussion with City Council regarding: Vice Chairman Mark McLean Commissioner Hassan Moghaddam Commissioner Jim Gibson City Council Aubrey Harbin, Development Specialist Mr. Olson, City Attorney Bobby Gervais, City Attorney a. Amendments to Appendix A, Sign Ordinance for Offsite Signage Kabiri explained that there was concern for the safety of people holding signs or wearing chicken suits to advertise for businesses at the busy intersections of the City such as FM 51 SIFM 528. He explained that there have also been some issues of vehicles with signs on them parked in landscaped areas throughout the City, and one last issue was the request of a business owner for off -site directional signs similar to what churches are allowed. Kabiri explained that as a result of P&Z's discussions in regards to handheld signs, the Commission is proposing to add a definition of handheld signs, restrict the size of handheld signs to 4 square feet, allow them only on private property with the property owner's permission, not in public rights -of -way, and add the requirement of a permit for such signs. In regards to vehicular signs, Kabiri explained that the Commission would like to add the requirement that vehicles with signage on them advertising businesses be 1 Brown suggested that a provision be added for the City to permit non- residential businesses to exceed the requirements of Chapter 54. There was much discussion regarding this topic, but it was ultimately decided to consider P&Z's recommendation as is and to review Chapter 54 further at a later date, if necessary. j Council and P&Z were in agreement to move forward in the process with the proposed changes. iv. Section 8, Original Business District requirements Kabiri explained that the Downtown District was created in 2007 and that this proposal is to remove the requirements specific to the OBD since it no longer exists. Mayor Smith stated that this is clean-up work and there were no further questions by any Council members. Council and P&Z were in agreement to move forward in the process with the proposed changes. v. Section 8, Fenestration requirements Kabiri explained that this proposal is to allow staff and P&Z to be flexible in the Downtown District regarding minimum fenestration requirements. He explained that there have been issues with several projects that were 2 to 5 percent off of the minimum requirements because of the types of businesses. Kabiri explained that it is difficult for banks to have as much glass as a retail establishment. Holland explained that P&Z would like to be able to consider different configurations proposed by developers/architects would still achieve DD regulations. Mayor Smith stated that it does make sense that if a builder/developer can show a better way to do something, P&Z should have a tool to allow it. There was discussion regarding the fine line of P&Z as an advisory board to Council and the flexibility of P&Z. Mr. Olson explained that adding a definition or a meaningful standard would be acceptable since it would still be holding to developer to a standard and not at the discretion of P&Z. Kabiri also stated that staff has suggested that another option may be to be able to approve the fenestration if the builder/developer meets the overall fenestration on the building — maybe they are under the requirement on one side of the building, but can provide extra fenestration on another side of the building. There was also discussion regarding case law and the purview of P&Z approval of site plans. It was decided that these issues would be considered further along in the process since this is a workshop item. 0 Council and P&Z were in agreement to move forward in the process with the proposed changes. vi. Section 15, Notice requirements Kabiri explained that this proposal of notice requirement is in regards to changes to the Permitted Use Table. He explained that currently the Zoning Ordinance and State law do not require that notices be sent out when changes are made to the PUT. He stated that the proposed amendment is to notify property owners within 200 feet of a district when a permitted use is being added or taken away. Brown asked if there was discussion about notifying HOA's and staff and P&Z explained that notifying HOA's was discussed in regards to notifications of commercial site plans and that P&Z decided not to propose a change to that process. McLean stated that P&Z has discussed this topic at length. He also stated that property owners should be made aware of proposed changes being considered in zoning districts adjacent to their properties. There was much discussion about concerns of leaving out property owners in the notification process, the cumbersome and expensive process and the burden on staff. Mr. Olson restated the proposal to make sure that everyone understood what the proposed change would require and stated that he has some concerns with it as well. He also stated that Council and P&Z have the authority to determine on a case -by -case basis if additional notifications are warranted, rather than requiring them in all instances with an ordinance change. Kabiri stated that the City does not want to be accused of making situational decisions. Mayor Smith stated that currently the City notifies the public of changes to the Permitted Use Table via the web site, newspaper notifications, and signs on property, but not individual households. Several Council members and Commissioners agreed that the City is reacting to citizens claiming that they were not being told about changes to the zoning districts and that the City wants people to be informed. It was agreed that this item needs more discussion in order to come up with the best solution on how to handle it. vii. Single Family Residential -Estate Zoning (SFR-E) Kabiri explained that a couple of years ago the Future Land Use Map was adopted with the SFR-E zoning category. The City hosted a Town Hall meeting, information was mailed to property owners and an article on the topic was published in the Focus on Friendswood newsletter. Since that time, two property owners have applied and received a zone change from SFR to SFR-E, and the City has received an additional 15 applications 5 from property owners requesting to change the zoning of their properties from SFR to S1iR-E. He explained that because of concerns with inconsistency and property owners restricting themselves, the applications have been put on hold He explained that P&Z is asking for direction on how to proceed with the applications. Mayor Smith explained some additional history of this topic and pointed out areas such as Windsong, Lundy Lane, Polly Ranch and Cowards Creek as areas of concern. He explained that there needs to be some clarification on the process such as should Council proactively change the zoning on the properties, and if so, what threshold of property owners expressing interest in the change would be reasonable for City Council to start the public hearing process. There was much discussion regarding property owner rights and "big brother" telling people what they can and cannot do with their property. There was also concern that doing nothing is going to result in tracts of land divided, greater population and loss of continuity in estate type neighborhoods. There was concern of discriminating against the 15 property owners whose applications are currently pending since 2 property owners have been granted the zone change already. Everyone agreed that more education should be provided to the property owners. There was a suggestion of another town hall meeting and also of Council members going out and discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the zone changes with property owners. Mr. Olson stated that anytime the City creates a new zoning district it is going to be a difficult process. He stated that Council does have the legislative authority to proactively change the zoning of properties if deems it necessary. It was agreed that this item needs more discussion in order to come up with the best solution on how to handle it. c. Amendments to Appendix B, Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to Notice requirements Kabiri explained the definition of a replat and that a map recorded at the County and surveys do not meet the definition of a replat. As such, he explained that since these recorded maps and surveys are not considered plats, when the properties are platted, they are not considered replats and therefore, the notice requirements are not applicable. Due to a couple of instances where residents have complained because they were not notified of property owners requesting to subdivide tracts of land, P&Z proposed this amendment to notify property owners within 200 feet of a subject property regardless of whether or not it is considered a replat. C. Mr. Olson stated that he would review the definitions in more detail, but that he did not see a problem with it. He stated that is expands the City's notification more than what the State requires. Council and P&Z were in agreement to move forward in the process with the proposed changes. d. Amendments to Article IV of Chapter 26-Environment-Nuisance Ordinance Weeds, Brush, and Rubbish Kabiri explained that this is in regards to mowing of undeveloped and uncultivated tracts of land and the number of times staff has to send out notices for non-compliance. Staff also feels that restricting weeds to 9 inches is too strict for larger tracts and that the ordinance proposal will dccm weeds a nuisance once they reach 24 inches on tracts of land; however, areas within a certain distance of the street or ROW will still be maintained at 9 inches. He explained that a stipulation is also being proposed for repeat offenders -- if a land owner is issued a notice and within the same year, code enforcement has to issue another notice for the same violation, code enforcement can issue a citation first rather than going through the notice process first. Brown stated that she does think that this will help and asked that current case law be reviewed since the original proposal was in 2008. Council and P&Z were in agreement to move forward in the process with the proposed changes. e. Frequency of mowing the buyout properties James Toney explained that currently the City mows and maintains 91 lots. He explained that each lot is mowed once a month. Mayor Smith stated that the lots are in several areas, but approximately 45 of the lots are in Imperial Estates. He added that there are 3 remaining homes in Imperial Estates. Barr stated that the City is spending a lot of money and doing away with a great natural resource and suggested that the lots be divided into 2 categories... those that are in neighborhoods and those that could be returned to their natural state. Council asked Toney to divide the lots into 2 categories and present it to Council again at a later date. This item was in relation to Community Services Department and requires no action by the P&Z Commission. f. Major Thoroughfare Plan Kabiri explained that 6 %Z years ago Council added Blackhawk Blvd. north of FM 2351 and south of FM 528. He explained that staff has been met with VA consternation by potential developers in these areas and they claim that by having to dedicate right-of-way in these areas, will kill their projects. Staff cannot find any studies that justified the need of these extensions and would like direction on whether or not Council still wants them. Kabiri also explained that in regards to the Brittany Bay Blvd. extension, that staff received a letter from TxDOT stating that their funding has been opened up again and that the City could continue with environmental studies. He explained that this does not mean the road will be built, but that the route can be studied at the same 80/20 ratio that it has been in the past. Staff needs direction on whether or not to move forward with the environmental studies in conjunction with TxDOT. Mayor Smith explained that staff uses the Major Thoroughfare Map to require right-of-way dedications from property owners during development. He explained that the extensions are on the map right now and unless changed, developers will be required to dedicate right-of-way. Council was in agreement to remove the proposed Blackhawk Blvd. extension and Brittany Bay Blvd, extension fiom the Thoroughfare Plan was made, but it was also suggested that input be provided by the Economic Development Corporation. Mayor Smith asked that the process be started to make these changes as well as some other possible changes to the Thoroughfare Map. 3. This portion of the meeting was adjourned at 9:43pm. REGULAR MEETING (2nd floor conference room, immediately folloWnk Public Hearin 1. The regular meeting was called to order at 9:45pm with the following people in attendance: Chairman Kevin Holland Commissioner Mark Tibbitts Commissioner David O'Farrell Commissioner Jim Nye Aubrey Harbin, Development Specialist Morad Kabiri, Director of CDD Councilman Jim Hill Vice Chairman Mark McLean Commissioner Hassan Moghaddam Commissioner Jim Gibson Mona Miller, City Planner Frank Manigold, Dep. Director of CDD Bobby Gervais, City Attorney 2. Communication from the publicicommittee liaisons (To comply with provisions of the Open Meetings Act, the Commission may not deliberate on subjects discussed under this agenda item. However, the Commission may direct such subjects be placed on a later regular Commission agenda for discussion and/or possible action.) None 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approval of minutes for the: 1) November 4, 2010 regular meeting Motion to Approve: Moghaddam Second: O'Farrell Vote: 7 to 0 (Unanimous) Motion Carried 4. Consideration and possible action regarding proposed amendments to Appendix A — Sign Ordinance, regarding handheld, vehicle and off -premise signage Motion to Approve: Gibson Second: O'Farrell Vote: 7 to 0 (Unanimous) Motion Carried 5. Consideration and possible action regarding proposed amendments to Appendix B — Subdivision Ordinance, Section IL Procedures for submission of plats., regarding notifications Motion to approve: McLean Second: Tibbitts Vote: 7 to 0 (Unanimous) Motion Carried 6. Consideration and possible action regarding proposed amendments to Appendix C — Zoning Ordinance, Section 7.Q. District area and height regulations. (Regulation Matrix — Commercial District) Motion to approve: Moghaddam Second: McLean Vote: 7 to 0 (Unanimous) Motion Carried 7. Consideration and possible action regarding proposed amendments to Appendix C -- Zoning Ordinance, Section 7.5.2., regarding Community Overlay District boundaries Motion to approve: Moghaddam Second: McLean Vote: 7 to 0 (Unanimous) Motion Carried 8. Consideration and possible action regarding proposed amendments to Appendix C — Zoning Ordinance, Section 8..i. Performance Standards., regarding noise Motion to approve: Moghaddam Second: McLean Vote: 7 to 0 (Unanimous) Motion Carried 9. Consideration and possible action regarding proposed amendments to Appendix C -- Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.110., regarding gasoline stations in DD Motion to approve: Moghaddam Second: McLean Vote: 7 to 0 (Unanimous) Motion Carried 10. Consideration and possible action regarding proposed amendments to Appendix C — Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.N.4.b., regarding fenestration W NO ACTION TAKEN, 11. Consideration and possible action regarding proposed amendments to Appendix C — Zoning Ordinance, Section 15. Amendments. NO ACTION TAKEN. 12. Consideration and possible action regarding proposed amendments to Article IV of Chapter 26 — Environment., regarding weeds, brush, and rubbish (nuisance) Motion to approve: Moghaddam Second: McLean Vote: 7 to 0 (Unanimous) Motion Carried 13, Consideration and possible action regarding Single Family Residential — Estate zoning NO ACTION TAKEN. 14. Consideration and possible action regarding future Planning and Zoning Commission meeting dates Motion to move the December 2nd meeting to December 6 h : Gibson Second: Tibbitts Vote: 7 to 0 (Unanimous) Motion Carried 15. Communications from the Commission O'Farrell stated that he is for property rights and would not want big brother telling him what he can or cannot do with a 2.5 acre tract of land. He stated that he is in favor of educating property owners in regards to the SFR-E zoning. He stated that he feels that the property owners who have already applied for the zone change, are doing it as a patriotic duty to keep the character of the neighborhood the same as it was when they bought their homes, but that newer property owners may be figuring the economic value of subdividing the lots. He stated that explaining to the homeowners the potential of quadrupling the density in the neighborhood, which is what would happen if 90x130 lots were developed, that would create an "ugly" picture for the homeowners and maybe gager an 80 percent vote to change zoning. Gibson stated that Commissioner Tibbitts facilitated a half day workshop with CEDC and they were happy with his product, Gibson also stated that he attended the GCCDD meeting last Tuesday. McLean welcomed the new Commissioner - rim Nye. Holland designated Nye as the new GCCDD liaison. 16. Reports 10 a. Council Liaison - None b. Staff - None 17. The meeting was adjourned at 10 pm. These minutes submitted by: Aubrey arbIL E AP Developmenteg alist 11