Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 2012-12-06 Regular PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 1. The regular meeting was called to order at 7pm with the following people in attendance: Chairman Mark McLean Vice Chairman Mark Tibbitts Commissioner David O’Farrell Commissioner Jim Nye Commissioner Brown Commissioner Jim Gibson Mona Miller, Planner Aubrey Harbin, Development Specialist Arnold Polanco, City Attorney Nick Haby, Planning Mgr/PIO Steve Rockey, City Councilman Frank Manigold, Dep. Dir of CDD Absent: Triplette 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) November 5, 2012 regular meeting Motion to approve: Nye Second: Tibbitts Vote: 6 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried 4. Consideration and possible action regarding a one time, one year extension for the final plat of West Ranch West Lake, Section 3 Motion to approve: Nye Second: Gibson Vote: 6 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2012 AT 7 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 910 S. FRIENDSWOOD DRIVE FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS 2 December 6, 2012 P&Z Meeting 5. Consideration and possible action regarding the commercial site plan for Dance Expressions at 204 W. Heritage Drive Motion to approve with staff comments: Nye Second: Tibbitts Vote: 6 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried Miller explained that the only staff comment remaining is to add the Perimeter Tree calculation to the landscape table. McLean stated that he is concerned about a metal building being built in the Community Overlay District. He stated that the applicant is proposing R19 metal façade on the building. He clarified that because the tract is located within 300 feet of the COD, it is required to comply with COD requirements. Miller explained that the property does fall within the COD, but that the requirement of no metal only applies to structures that are visible from the designated thoroughfares. There was clarification that a metal structure is allowed, but that a metal façade is what is regulated by the COD requirements and is not allowed. McLean stated that the definition of the Community Shopping Center zoning district says that the district should be made up of unified groupings of one or more buildings and that is also should be comprised of buildings compatible with surrounding residential areas and this metal building will be built across the street from existing residences. Nye stated that there are other metal buildings at Laurel and W. Heritage. He asked if the building would be visible from FM 2351 and if it were screened with trees it might not be visible. Miller stated that the rear and right side of the building may be visible from FM 2351. Applicant added a note stating that the site is located in the COD but that it will not be visible from FM 2351 and that is the question. Miller explained that the façade requirement was discussed in DRC and that staff left it up to the applicant to determine whether or not it will be visible. The visibility could be screened with trees or buildings. Nye confirmed that only the visible portion would have to comply with the façade requirement. Brown stated that the applicant has been made aware of the rule and then after the site plan is approved, it is determined that the building will be visible, at what point could the visibility be verified. Miller stated that we may be able to determine the visibility during construction and require the non-metal façade. Polanco stated that the City has discretion to require compliance with the ordinance up until the issuance of a CO. O’Farrell asked if the owner gets any relief of the potential of a future building to be constructed on FM 2351 which would block the visibility. Miller stated that there is not 3 December 6, 2012 P&Z Meeting currently a provision for that in the ordinance. He also verified the length of the building and that the exterior façade could be a faux façade. Gibson asked how far the building is located from FM 2351. Marcus Rives, designer, stated that the distance from the back of the building to the front property line of Friendswood Hardware is about 353 feet, which does not include the additional distance of approximately 15-20 feet of right-of-way. Gibson explained that the Commission tried to define the 300-foot statement in the COD previously and it was discussed at length. Miller stated that the most recent changes including changing the definition that if any portion of a lot falls within 300 feet of a thoroughfare, it must comply with the COD requirements. Nye asked if the applicant is aware of the risk and willing to clad the visible portions prior to issuance of a CO. Rives stated that the applicant would be willing and would more than likely use Hardie board because of budget constraints and it would not match surrounding buildings. O’Farrell stated that he would not want to wait until it is time to issue the Certificate of Occupancy to determine whether or not the building is visible from FM 2351. Nye stated that it is going to apparent during construction whether or not it is visible. Gibson stated that he is concerned with the note saying that the building cannot be seen from FM 2351. Miller explained that the notes provides justification of why it is a metal building and that by striking the note and approving it, it may be viewed that the Commission agrees and it is approved as is. Amend motion to remove portion of COD note “…this property is not visible from FM 2351 and is not required to comply with masonry façade.” :Gibson Second: Nye Nye asked if the remaining portion of the note would protect the City. Miller stated that is does require the site to comply with the COD requirements, but that having the remainder of the sentence justifies why the plans are submitted the way they are. McLean stated that the note was a result of discussions with the designer, city engineer and staff. Gibson withdrew his amendment. Nye withdrew his second. O’Farrell stated that he feels it is wrong to approve a site plan with a false statement on it. McLean stated that he feels the site plan meets the ordinance as it is written, but that it may be an unintended consequence. He stated that he is not in favor of metal buildings in the CSC zoning district. He stated that he does not like it and that the City is going to have to live with a metal building for 30-40 years. 4 December 6, 2012 P&Z Meeting After the vote, Gibson requested that the COD section of the ordinance be placed on a future agenda for discussion. 6. Discussion with Frank Manigold, Building Official and Deputy Director of Community Development Department, regarding Code Enforcement Frank Manigold, Deputy Director of Community Development and Building Official, explained code enforcement procedures to the Commission and explained that definitions and ordinances adopted by P&Z and Council directly affect code enforcement and how they enforce the ordinances. He stated that sometimes code enforcement writes citations regarding zoning issues. McLean asked how CDD ensures that what is approved on site plans is what gets built. Manigold responded that the inspectors and planners to random inspections and site visits and monitor the jobs while they are under construction. McLean asked what P&Z can do to help Community Development staff. Manigold stated that keeping ordinances broad and applicable to most or all properties is better than writing ordinances intended to address a problem on one or a few properties. 7. Consideration and possible action regarding Appendix C – Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.L. Personal Care Facilities Motion to remove from table: Gibson Second: McLean Vote: 6 to 0 (unanimous) Item Removed from Table Miller informed the Commission that staff has met to discuss this and is working with the city attorney to come up with proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance and will present the changes to the Commission at a future meeting. No further action taken. 8. Update from David O’Farrell regarding the Parking Sub-Committee O’Farrell stated that the subcommittee does not have a full report to present at this time; however, he did provide some information for the commissioners to think about. He explained that currently a good average parking grid is 3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area and that 5 spaces per 1,000 is considered gold standard. He stated that providing sufficient parking in Friendswood’s Downtown District is going to be a challenge because of the small lots and the fact that owners are allowed to participate in shared parking agreements. O’Farrell provided five examples of parking scenarios which included the lack of parking in the River Oaks area. He explained that Rice Epicurean is closing because they cannot park their customers and that property in has recently been acquired to build a parking garage in this area. He stated that Robert’s Business Park here is Friendswood is maxed out in their parking. He stated that when they first built out the interior of the building, they were only occupying the first floor, but when they built out the second floor, the parking is not sufficient to support all of those businesses. He said the property owner owns the adjacent lot where people park for overflow parking. O’Farrell 5 December 6, 2012 P&Z Meeting stated that a high end Asian restaurant proposed here in Friendswood purchased a different site than what they were originally considering because they could not fit enough parking spaces on the original site. He stated that the old Blockbuster and Starbucks is also short on parking. He explained that West Ranch just issued a press release advertising 4.6 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet for their commercially zoned property. He added that he would like to look at the Friendswood Parking Group Table and focus on categories with less than 3.3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. 9. Consideration and possible action regarding future Planning and Zoning Commission meeting dates Due to a lack of quorum on December 20, 2012, it was unanimously decided that meeting will be moved to December 17, 2012. Miller also explained that the Commissioners will need to attend a Joint Public Hearing with City Council on Monday, January 7, 2013, so the January 3 meeting will be moved to January 7. 10. Communications from the Commission Gibson asked that the reconsideration of the 300 foot definition in the Community Overlay District be put on the Commission’s To Do List for future consideration. 11. Reports A. Council Liaison – Rockey explained that at the last Council meeting there was discussion about a possible bond election. He explained that a group of citizens is being formed to study and consider whether or not a bond election should be held and what items might be funded with the bond. He stated that if any of the Commissioners were interested in serving on the bond team to contact Roger Roecker. B. Staff - None 12. The meeting adjourned at 8:30pm. These minutes respectfully submitted by: Aubrey Harbin Aubrey Harbin Development Specialist/P&Z Secretary