Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 2012-10-01 Special PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JOINT WORK SESSION 1. The joint work session was called to order at 6pm with the following people in attendance: Chairman Mark McLean Commissioner Jim Gibson Commissioner Chris Brown Commissioner David O’Farrell Commissioner Jim Nye Commissioner Arthur Triplette, Jr. Mona Miller, Planner Nick Haby, Planning Manager/PIO Aubrey Harbin, Development Specialist Morad Kabiri, Asst. City Manager City Council Steve Weathered, City Attorney Arnold Polanco, City Attorney Absent: Tibbitts 2. Discussion with City Council regarding possible amendments to: A. Appendix C – Zoning Ordinance, Section 7. Permitted Use Table, regarding NAICS use #713940 Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers Haby explained that currently the Permitted Use Table does not allow Fitness Centers as a permitted use in CSC. Councilmember Brown asked if there is a specific location that brought this to our attention and asked why not SUP; Haby responded that there was no certain location that brought this up. McLean stated that the Commission has discussed this and feel that fitness centers should be allowed in CSC. O’Farrell stated that the Commission is also proposing to add the SUP requirement in NC because they do not want to disallow the use in this district, but also would like to take specific sites into consideration because of parking ratios. MINUTES OF A SPECIAL & REGULAR MEETING HELD MONDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2012 AT 7PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 910 S. FRIENDSWOOD DRIVE FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS 2 October 1, 2012 P&Z Meeting B. Section 14 of the Code of Ordinances, adding a Vested Rights ordinance Kabiri explained that a draft of this ordinance was presented before. Mayor Holland how does this help city and Kabiri stated that it establishes an application process for vesting and that anyone wanting to develop land and fails to submit application loses their vesting rights McLean stated that it provides clarity and a process for those who believe they are grandfathered under a particular zoning regulation. He stated that a notice would be posted at the time of application and at time of decision. McLean added that the ordinance also provides an appeal process for aggrieved persons. He stated that it would probably be used infrequently Hill raised the question of when is first permit or vesting started. Kabiri explained that the definition of first permit is gray area and that the state legislature tried to address it in 2005, but it is still vague. Mclean added that from information he has been given at various conferences, a development meeting/DRC does not count as a first permit. He explained that first permit is defined by this proposed ordinance. McGinnis asked it a process that defines rights at the beginning would be beneficial to the City; McLean stated that it is a forward looking statute McGinnis stated that the ordinance allows 30 days for the city to review an application, but that the applicant only has 10 days to appeal. He stated that he would like to make these time frames equal. Kabiri stated that the 10 day appeal time frame is consistent with law regarding appeals for ZBOA. Councilmember Brown said that she appreciated the P&Z Commission for Bringing the ordinance back for review. She asked what the city bulletin board and where it is located. She also stated that she would like an email blast in addition to posting the notice on the web site. Brown also stated that if Council adopts this ordinance, we have to follow it and ensure that all staff members know the process. Kabiri stated that he is concerned with the notice requirement. He explained that a determination of vested rights is not a subjective determination and he is concerned with setting up a false expectation of input by citizens. Councilmember Brown stated that the ordinance gives more certainty for developer and that an aggrieved person will have to prove their involvement that makes them aggrieved. McLean stated that the three things he is taking from this session is that P&Z should work on the appeal time frame, define where notices will be posted and tighten up definition of permit. 3 October 1, 2012 P&Z Meeting The only other known city to have a Vested Rights ordinance is San Antonio. C. Appendix C – Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.N, Downtown District supplemental requirements and the Design Criteria Manual, Appendix E Downtown District Amenities Haby explained that Keep Friendswood Beautiful and the P&Z Commission have been working together on some changes to the Downtown District amenity requirements. He stated that requiring property owners to be responsible for maintaining the amenities that are added in the ROW and additional specifications for amenities are the main changes to the Zoning Ordinance and the Design Criteria Manual. McLean explained that the proposal is for amenities to be required and that the Commission established a minimum number of required fixtures. He stated that specifications for light poles were also added. He explained that the minimum requirements are written out in the Zoning Ordinance and that the DCM gives examples of fixtures and materials to be used. McLean stated that KFB did a lot of work in helping with these changes Councilmember Scott asked if stamped concrete would still be allowed and if it is a cheaper alternative; the stamped concrete option was removed. Councilmember Brown asked if lighting is paid for by owner. Kabiri stated that the owners pay for the lighting. Brown stated that this is different than residential subdivisions because the city pays light bills for street lighting in subdivisions. She also stated that grass and weeds growing through the brick pavers are hard to maintain. Kabiri stated that the proposed changes in the DCM will require a concrete base and concrete border under pavers. 3. The joint work session was adjourned at 6:40pm. REGULAR MEETING (2nd floor conference room, immediately following JWS) 1. The regular meeting was called to order at 6:44pm with the following people in attendance: Chairman Mark McLean Commissioner Jim Gibson Commissioner Chris Brown Commissioner David O’Farrell Commissioner Jim Nye Commissioner Arthur Triplette, Jr. Mona Miller, Planner Nick Haby, Planning Manager/PIO Aubrey Harbin, Development Specialist Steve Weathered, City Attorney Absent: Tibbitts 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 4 October 1, 2012 P&Z Meeting subjects be placed on a later regular Commission agenda for discussion and/or possible action.) Sherry Goen, Keep Friendswood Beautiful, stated that she appreciates the support and the work of the Commission and city staff on the Downtown District improvements. Brett Banfield, Friendswood, stated that regarding the sidewalks in the Downtown District, he has paved two ways – with concrete base and sides and with sand base. His most recent contractor recommended installing the pavers on a sand base with concrete sides to allow for more shifting of the pavers. Also, when a repair is required, it is easier to take out the pavers and reinstall them rather than taking out pavers, busting out concrete and then replacing. His current contractor will provide a 1-year warranty for pavers installed on top of concrete and a 2-year warranty for pavers installed on top of sand/polymer mix. 3. Consideration and possible action regarding proposed amendments to Appendix C – Zoning Ordinance, Section 7. Permitted Use Table, regarding NAICS use #713940 Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers No action taken; original recommendation will be provided to Council. 4. Consideration and possible action regarding proposed amendments to Section 14 of the Code of Ordinances, adding a Vested Rights ordinance McLean explained concerns he understood Council to have included the appeal time frame, notice requirement and tightening up definitions. Weathered stated that Vested Rights is a more controversial ordinance because of its ambiguity. Regarding definitions, he would prefer to use the same definition as the state statute. Regarding the time period for appeal, it is borrowed from existing statute for filing an appeal of the ZBOA to District Court. City has 30 day time frame to process application. Weathered agreed that the notice requirement needs some clarification and he would leave it to P&Z to determine. McLean if we don’t have this ordinance, someone can claim that a DRC meeting is fair notice even though a DRC meeting does not meet statutory definition of first permit. Weathered agreed that VR ordinance would provide additional protection for city. Will benefit city and developer by providing a sequence and staff can have information to evaluate and determine whether or not there is a legal issue. The Commission recommended that staff provid this ordinance in DRC packet, if adopted. The first concern raised by Council was the definition of first permit. It was determined that definitions will remain same as already defined by existing state statutes. The second recommendation from Council was to make the appeal timeline more equal or balanced with the City’s review time. Weathered stated that there is no problem with allowing more than 10 days for applicant to appeal. There was discussion about various time frames allowed for appeals in different situations. 5 October 1, 2012 P&Z Meeting Motion to change the previous Recommendation Memo dated 7-19-12 to allow the applicant to appeal the City Manager’s decision within 30 days rather than 10 days: McLean Second: Nye Vote: 6 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried The third suggestion by Council was to clarify the notice requirements under section addressing the processing of the application. 2 notice requirements – at time of submittal of completed application and at time of city manager decision problem is location of city bulletin board and also email blast Brown stated that he is concerned with making ordinance too detailed because technology may change and suggested making the notice requirement consistent with any other city notice requirement. There was discussion about the various news alert systems that citizens can sign up to receive. Emailing agendas is a courtesy and is not required. Notices posted on the bulletin board at City Hall are the requirement per the Open Meetings Act. Motion to change Recommendation Memo dated 7-19-12 to require both notice requirements in the proposed Vested Rights ordinance to be consistent with the City’s Open Meetings Act procedures: McLean Second: Nye Vote: 6 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried There was some discussion about the aggrieved party and the process they must go through to prove how/why they are an aggrieved person. Weathered clarified that an aggrieved person would have to go through same application process, pay the application fee and apply by same appeal timelines, etc., as the property owner. 5. Consideration and possible action regarding possible amendments to Appendix C – Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.N, Downtown District supplemental requirements and the Design Criteria Manual, Appendix E Downtown District Amenities Brett Banfield stated that he has had pavers installed both on concrete and on sand with a polymer additive. He said that his most recent contractor recommends pavers being installed on sand/polymer mixture because it allows for movement and it is easier to repair water and sewer lines under the pavers. He added that a weed barrier is put down before the sand and that it still has a concrete edge. He stated that Dunn Brothers pavers are installed on sand and they made it through the drought with no problems. O’Farrell asked if we could get some written specifications from Mr. Banfield’s contractor and have Morad Kabiri review them. He also stated that this would address the concern of the cost associated with installing pavers and concrete. Nye asked if tree roots would move pavers. Banfield said he has not encountered that problem as of yet. Nye stated that is has a concern with tree wells located in close proximity to pavers. O’Farrell stated that tree roots will move just about anything, but with sand it would be a less expensive fix. 6 October 1, 2012 P&Z Meeting Gibson stated that there may be a couple of benefits of installing pavers on sand base being that it is less expensive to install and cheaper to repair. O’Farrell said that it means a lot that a contractor would provide an additional year warranty on one type of installation over another. Motion to Postpone Amendment of Recommendation Memo regarding paved sidewalks: Gibson Second: Nye Vote: 6 to 0 Item Postponed Triplette pointed out that the benches are required to be anchored to concrete. He also had a question regarding which direction the benches should face – the sidewalk or the street. Miller stated that currently there is no requirement regarding which way the benches should face. Brown stated that the ordinance requires property owners to maintain trash cans and asked if maintenance includes emptying the trash as well as ensuring that they do not get rusted, broken, secured to ground, etc. Of new developments will take care, but in the long term or vacant properties, there may be an issue Harbin stated that the DCM states that trash receptacles should be easily accessible for trash collection, which may imply that city would pick up the trash. Weathered stated that the definition of maintenance is ambiguous and he would not include trash removal as a part of maintenance. Miller stated that Section 8 N. could be amended to include timely trash removal. Nye verified with Mr. Banfield that he does not have any trash receptacles on his properties. Nye questioned whether the city should even require trash receptacles. He stated that we may be inviting a problem where a problem does not exist. He has heard valid concerns about trash removal at the last couple of meetings and stated that maybe the Commission should revisit the requirement of trash receptacles. Motion to amend Zoning Ordinance to add requirement of trash removal in addition to maintenance: Brown Withdrawn Motion: Brown Brown stated that KFB’s idea is to eventually have pedestrian traffic which may warrant the need for trash receptacles. O’Farrell stated that having a trash receptacle every 100ft may feel like too many. He suggested maybe considering spacing similar to fire hydrants i.e. one within 500 feet of each development. 7 October 1, 2012 P&Z Meeting Gibson stated that the requirement of trash receptacles could be tied to the use of the building. O’Farrell pointed out that uses change. There was also a concern with vacant buildings and the trash not being emptied while the building is not occupied. O’Farrell stated that he understands KFB to be envisioning a 4th of July event with lots of pedestrian traffic and providing a place for them to throw away trash. Motion to reconsider the previous recommendation and remove the requirement of a minimum of one trash receptacle in the landscape area of each development: Nye Second: Brown Vote: 4 to 2 (Triplette and O’Farrell opposed) Motion Carried Amend motion to require trash receptacles within 500ft of each development: O’Farrell Second: None Motion Failed Staff will provide examples and language at the next meeting as well as a visual of blocks delineated along Friendswood Drive and show increments of 500 feet. 6. Consideration and possible action regarding future Planning and Zoning Commission meeting dates Miller explained that the next regular meeting would be Thursday, October 18 at 7pm; after that we may combine the November 1 meeting with a possible Joint Work Session/JPH with Council on November 5. The second regular meeting in November will be on the 15th. 7. Communications from the Commission None 8. Reports A. Council Liaison - None B. Staff – Miller informed the Commission that the bus tour would take place on Tuesday, October 30 from 9:30am to 3pm. 9. The meeting was adjourned at 7:54pm. These minutes respectfully submitted by: Aubrey Harbin Aubrey Harbin Development Specialist/P&Z Secretary