Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 2011-10-03 Regular 1 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING 1. The special meeting was called to order at 7:07pm with the following people in attendance: Chairman Kevin Holland Vice Chairman Mark McLean Commissioner Mark Tibbitts Commissioner Hassan Moghaddam Commissioner David O’Farrell Commissioner Jim Gibson Commissioner Jim Nye Mona Miller, Planner Morad Kabiri, Director of CDD Frank Manigold, Dep. Director of CDD Aubrey Harbin, Development Specialist City Council and City Attorney 2. Joint Work Session A. Discussion with City Council regarding proposed amendments to the Appendix C - Zoning Ordinance for: I. Section 7.J. PUD and Section 8.H. Planned unit development standards and requirements Kabiri explained that these proposed changes are intended to relieve developers of the upfront cost and time included with submitting a PUD application without knowing if the zoning will be changed. He explained that the result is to apply for the zoning and submit the detailed site plan at a later date or the option to present all plans up front is still available. II. Section 7.Q. Regulation Matrix-Residential Districts, regarding PUD Cluster Homes Kabiri explained that this proposal is to remove PUD Cluster Homes from the Residential Regulation Matrix. Holland stated that he would like to keep the information as a guideline. Kabiri suggested renaming it and creating a zoning category so that it does not get confused with PUDs. MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2011 AT 6PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 910 S. FRIENDSWOOD DRIVE FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS 2 Mayor Smith stated that intent of Cluster Homes was not to increase number of residential units, but to provide a greater degree of open space and small lots with no change in density. He asked that if a zoning category was created for this, would the applicant be required to come to Council for approval. Kabiri explained that there would not be any properties within the City with this designated zoning, so an applicant would be required to come to Council with a zone change. Kabiri explained that with these proposed changes, there will be two options to process a PUD application – 1) to get uses approved prior to the developer paying for engineering costs and 2) submit a conceptual/more detailed plan with the application. Brown clarified that there is nothing prohibiting Council from using discretion on a PUD right now, but that these guidelines make it clearer. She also stated that she would like to see flow charts and that this may be another enhancement to the development process. III. Section 7 Permitted Use Table, regarding PUD, PUD mixed use Kabiri explained that this proposal is to remove PUD and PUD Mixed Use from the Permitted Use Table as PUD is a negotiated zoning category and uses are permitted by right. IV. Section 7 Permitted Use Table, regarding change in uses allowed in Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Kabiri explained that this proposal is to allow Day Cares and Other Schools and Instruction (karate, gymnastics, etc.) in the NC zoning category. He explained that these are ideal uses that fit into the NC zoning description. Holland stated that the only concern is the traffic and safety of kids on thoroughfares. V. Section 9.H.2. Site plans required, regarding PUDs Kabiri explained that this is a change resulting from the other proposed changes and that is it just adds PUD to the list of zoning classifications requiring a site plan submittal. B. Discussion with City Council, Community and Economic Development Committee, and Keep Friendswood Beautiful regarding Downtown District streetscape requirements Kabiri explained that in October 2007, the Downtown District regulations were adopted and that the intent was a walkable, mixed-use district. Modifications were made in 2008 to add guidelines for pavers, lighting, benches, etc in the Design Criteria Manual. He explained that most projects include the DD amenities, but that the guidelines are too loose. 3 There was discussion about the intent of incentives provided by CEDC to help offset the cost of installing DD amenities and that the reduced setbacks, increased building height and offsite drainage was also intended to help owners have more use of their land. Brett Banfield, CEDC/Developer, stated that the City has done a great job with the Downtown District and has saved potential developers a lot of money with the drainage improvements and made it easier to develop. He stated that as a developer, the regulations are not unreasonable; as a citizen, the regulations make Friendswood a more beautiful City; and as a CEDC board member, the regulations make Friendswood more attractive to businesses and increases values. McLean stated that there are still some properties in the DD area that are not zoned DD and it is up to the owners to opt in. Sherry, Keep Friendswood Beautiful, stated that she read the ordinances back to 2007 and that she has had a developer ask why others developers were not following the same guidelines. She stated that KFB would like uniformity. She stated that KFB sends letters to the business owners frequently about the condition of their properties. She suggested that we start with just a few requirements. Smith explained that there are no regulations that would prohibit an owner from installing red light posts. He stated that we know what look is desired, but we do not have the teeth to enforce it. He stated that we want to maintain a balance and be developer friendly. Hill stated that in 2006, there were no developments going on and that the changes that have been made in the DD area have brought businesses back to Friendswood. He stated that he does not want to make any changes that would stop the progress that has been made. O’Farrell stated that as a developer in Friendswood for 25 years, the City requirements for landscaping, etc. that he had to install is what now gives him 100% occupancy. He stated that the developers will benefit from the requirements. Barker stated that he agrees with Hill and suggested that maybe we just fine tune the sidewalk requirements, but do not overdo. Brown agrees that there has been a lot of effort by P&Z regarding development of the DD and that the DD aesthetics has been talked about for a long time. She also stated that the uniqueness is attractive and that maybe the City could invest in uniformity rather than developers. She suggested surveying land owners in the Downtown area. She also stated that the letters from KFB have been very effective. There was further discussion about surveying or meeting with land owners to find out what characteristics of the DD development they like or do not like. 4 In summary, Mayor Smith stated that KFB and CEDC are concerned about the long term look of the Downtown District. He explained that Council has discussed pros and cons of making changes in the requirements and suggested the possibility of more incentives for businesses. 3. The special meeting adjourned at 7:10pm. REGULAR MEETING (2nd floor conference room) 1. The regular meeting was called to order at 7:15pm with the following in attendance: Chairman Kevin Holland Vice Chairman Mark McLean Commissioner Mark Tibbitts Commissioner Hassan Moghaddam Commissioner David O’Farrell Commissioner Jim Gibson Commissioner Jim Nye Mona Miller, Planner Frank Manigold, Dep. Director of CDD Aubrey Harbin, Development Specialist 2. Communication from the public/committee 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) September 15, 2011 regular meeting Motion to approve: McLean Second: Moghaddam Vote: 7 to 0 (unanimous) Minutes Approved 4. Consideration and possible action regarding final plat of The Enclave at West Ranch, being 8.627 acres out of the John Dickinson Survey, Abstract 9, also being a partial re- subdivision of a portion of Lots 133-137 and 149-153 and a portion of the unimproved North-South 30’ road West of Lots 137 and 153 and East of Lots 136 and 152, Slone Subdivision as recorded in Volume 3, Page 61A (Volume 254A, Pg. 6) Galveston County Map Records, Galveston County, Friendswood, Texas Motion to approve: Gibson Second: McLean Vote: 7 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried 5. Consideration and possible action regarding proposed amendments to Appendix C – Zoning Ordinance, Section 7.J. PUD and Section 8.H. Planned unit development standards and requirements Motion to approve with the condition that staff relocated the Cluster Home and Mixed Use information to the Design Criteria Manual to keep as a guide for developers: O’Farrell 5 Second: McLean Vote: 7 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried McLean suggested that maybe we keep the Cluster Home guidelines as a separate document in the Design Criteria Manual. He stated that keeping the Cluster Home section of the ordinance is a separate issue than simplifying the PUD process. Holland stated that a lot of time and effort went into the Cluster Home and Mixed Use ordinances and he does not want to get rid of all of it. He stated that regarding Cluster Home development, that detention ponds should be calculated as open space. O’Farrell stated that Cluster Homes allows land to be developed, but does affect density in a small way. Gibson agrees, but it also increases tax base because it allows the land to be developed. He suggested exploring the option of creating a Cluster Home zoning district. 6. Consideration and possible action regarding proposed amendments to Appendix C – Zoning Ordinance, Section 7.Q. Regulation Matrix-Residential Districts, regarding PUD Cluster Homes Motion to approve and direct staff to include Cluster Home information in the Design Criteria Manual: O’Farrell Second: Moghaddam Vote: 7 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried 7. Consideration and possible action regarding proposed amendments to Appendix C – Zoning Ordinance, Section 7 Permitted Use Table, regarding PUD, PUD mixed use Motion to approve: O’Farrell Second: Tibbitts Vote: 7 to (unanimous) Motion Carried Miller explained that this proposal removed the PUD and PUD Mixed Use columns from the Permitted Use Table. Commissioner O’Farrell recused himself from the meeting for Item 8. 8. Consideration and possible action regarding proposed amendments to Appendix C – Zoning Ordinance, Section 7 Permitted Use Table, regarding change in uses allowed in Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Motion to approve: McLean Second: Tibbitts Vote: 6 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried Miller explained that this proposal is adding NAICS Use #6116 Other Schools and Instruction and #6244 Daycares as allowed in Neighborhood Commercial zoning. Commissioner O’Farrell reentered the meeting. 6 9. Consideration and possible action regarding proposed amendments to Appendix C – Zoning Ordinance, Section 9.H.2. Site plans required, regarding PUDs Motion to approve: Gibson Second: O’Farrell Vote: 7 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried Miller explained that this adds PUD as a zoning district that requires site plan approval and covers both application options in the PUD process. 10. Consideration and possible action regarding Downtown District streetscape requirements Motion to request that Keep Friendswood Beautiful make a recommendation to P&Z, CEDC and Council to specify requirements and colors for sidewalks, lamp posts, benches and trash receptacles in the Downtown District: Gibson Second: Holland Vote: 7 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried McLean stated that the DD guidelines were added to the Design Criteria Manual to avoid creating an ordinance and to remain flexible. He stated that regarding red light poles, those would still have to be approved by P&Z. There was discussion about the difference in developing a raw tract of land versus a property with an existing building or business. Tibbitts stated that this is going to cost someone money and suggested that the City sell bonds to help fund installation of some of the DD amenities. Gibson stated that the DCM already requires sidewalks, light poles, benches, trash receptacles so the discussion is not about instituting new requirements, it is a change in the requirements already in place. Harbin stated that the DD ordinance says “or” regarding the requirement of the amenities which is the looseness of the ordinance. She also explained that the 15’ landscaped area requires a paved surface which allows concrete rather than the pavers. Miller explained that one issue brought up downstairs was a color issue and that will be addressed the Zoning rewrite 11. Discussion regarding one year review of an action taken September 13, 2010 regarding amendments to Appendix B – Subdivision Ordinance, Section II. Procedures for submission of plats., regarding notifications Miller explained that this ordinance was changed a year ago and that the Commission expressed a desire to review the ordinance in a year to evaluate the effectiveness of the ordinance. Staff confirmed that the ordinance has been working and they have not encountered any problems to date. 7 McLean left at 8pm. 12. Discussion regarding the first draft of the proposed Zoning Ordinance revision The Commissioners requested hard copies of the Zoning Ordinance to review. This will be discussed at the November 3 workshop. 13. Consideration and possible action regarding future Planning and Zoning Commission meeting dates Miller informed the Commission that there will be a Joint Public Hearing on Monday, October 17 for the items that were discussed in the Special Meeting tonight. Motion to move Oct. 20 meeting to Oct. 17: Moghaddam Second: Tibbitts Vote: 6 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried 14. Communications from the Commission Tibbitts said he attended the ZBOA meeting Tuesday night and there was a variance denied. He explained that the home owner had a storage building that was destroyed in Hurricane Ike and the location of the building was grandfathered until it was destroyed by the hurricane. He stated that he was surprised that the person who submitted a complaint about the building when he started rebuilding it was not present at the meeting. Tibbitts also gave an update on the SFR-E Subcommittee. He stated that he spoke with the Mayor and that he will meet with the Mayor, Councilman McGinnis and Councilman Hill before the next meeting on October 17. Holland stated that he does not care for the lash outs in the newspaper about City staff. O’Farrell agreed. 15. Reports A. Council Liaison - None B. Staff - None 16. The regular meeting adjourned at 8:09pm. These minutes respectfully submitted by: Aubrey Harbin Aubrey Harbin Development Specialist/P&Z Secretary