Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 2012-05-07 Special PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JOINT WORK SESSION 1. The Joint Work Session was called to order at 6:30pm with the following people in attendance: Chairman Mark McLean Commissioner David O’Farrell Commissioner Jim Nye Commissioner Hassan Moghaddam Commissioner Jim Gibson Mona Miller, Planner Nick Haby, Planning Manager/PIO Aubrey Harbin, Development Specialist City Attorney Steve Weathered City Council Commissioner Tibbitts was absent. 2. Discussion with City Council regarding a proposed vested rights ordinance Kabiri explained that the purpose of the proposed vested rights ordinance is to define when a property is vested. He explained that P&Z worked with the City Attorney Weathered to come up with the proposal and that the recommendation memo contains the proposed ordinance. McLean stated that the proposal provides framework for a developer to come to the City to determine which rules and regulations apply to his/her property and it gives the developer a process to follow. Weathered explained that the State has addressed vested rights several times, but that the state statute is vague. He stated that according to the proposed vested rights ordinance, if a developer starts a project and the rules change, it is up to the developer to provide evidence to determine vesting rights. He stated that the ordinance includes a definition of permit and that the City Manager and/or his/her designee will have the opportunity to review the application. MINUTES OF A A SPECIAL MEETING AND A REGULAR MEETING HELD MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012 AT 6:30PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 910 S. FRIENDSWOOD DRIVE FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS 2 May 7, 2012 P&Z Meeting McLean stated that this type of ordinance is often talked about at the annual land use conference in Austin and that we used ordinances from other cities as examples to create this proposal. Kabiri stated that having this ordinance in place does not change the fact that a project may be vested, but that it adds a process for the developer to apply to the City for a determination of vested rights. There was some discussion about whether or not to allow citizen or City Council input in determining whether or not the owner is vested. The way the proposed ordinance is written, the appeal process would go to ZBOA. It was mentioned that maybe Council should be involved. Brown stated that she does not feel that this ordinance provides clarity needed. She stated that this would give an owner more teeth if they are vested and she is concerned with lack of notice. She asked who can appeal an application that has been filed. She also asked that once vesting is approved, what rights or options do surrounding property owners have. Brown said that the state statute does not require applicant to submit application for vesting and that the proposed ordinance would be developer friendly, not neighbor friendly Kabiri explained that Chapter 245 of the Local Government Code is developer friendly and the City has to be careful not to violate the state regulations. Weathered stated that the state definitions are ambiguous and that is part of the problem with determining whether or not a project is vested. Mayo r Smith stated that he appreciates that this is not a requirement and that this proposal puts the onus on the developer to prove vested rights, and if they don’t, they waive their vested rights. He also stated that ZBOA and CBOA have stood the test of time and that they maintain autonomy and both are able to grant or deny variances without political influences. Brown stated that there is nothing to prevent the City from changing the definition of permit. She also questioned whether or not the waiver is a legitimate legal process. She stated that she would like for notices of application to be provided to nearby landowners and questioned the possibility of unintended consequences in doing away with loopholes of the state law. 3. The Joint Work Session adjourned at 7:02pm. REGULAR MEETING (2nd floor conference room, immediately following JWS) 1. The regular meeting was called to order at 7:05pm with the following people in attendance: Chairman Mark McLean Commissioner David O’Farrell Commissioner Jim Nye Commissioner Hassan Moghaddam Mona Miller, Planner Nick Haby, Planning Manager/PIO Aubrey Harbin, Development Specialist 3 May 7, 2012 P&Z Meeting 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.) Charles Prendergast, Friendswood, stated the regarding the Vested Rights proposal, he thinks that citizens who are watching closely would like the option to be notified about potential development. 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approval of minutes for the: 1) April 19, 2012 regular meeting Motion to approve with one correction: Moghaddam Second: O’Farrell Vote: 5 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried 4. Consideration and possible action regarding the final plat of the BSR Subdivision No. 1, being 5.450 acres out of a 19.4825 acre tract, being Tracts B and C of Lot 63 of the Coffman and Hoidale Subdivision in the Perry and Austin League, Abstract 55, Harris County, Friendswood, Texas Motion to approve: Gibson Second: Moghaddam Vote: 5 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried Miller explained that the property has access and utilities and that the Subdivision Ordinance allows the owner to subdivide a portion of the tract with the stipulation that there is a note on the plat that the remainder of the property will be required to be platted at the time it is developed. McLean stated that the Blackhawk Blvd. right-of-way acquisition would be addressed on the future plat. 5. Consideration and possible action regarding the final plat of Captain’s Corner on Heritage, being 2.703 acres situated in Lot 4, Block 2 Friendswood Subdivision in the Sarah McKissick League, Galveston County, Friendswood, Texas Motion to approve with staff comments: O’Farrell Second: Moghaddam Vote: 5 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried Miller explained that the property owner is subdividing one lot into two lots. 6. Presentation by Keep Friendswood Beautiful regarding Downtown District amenities James Toney, director of Community Services, introduced Keep Friendswood Beautiful board members who gave a presentation on their recommendations regarding inconsistency 4 May 7, 2012 P&Z Meeting in design being allowed in the Downtown District. Board members present were Paul Marx, Sherry Goen, and Kaye Corey. Their recommendations included changing the wording from suggested to required and to require all fixtures and amenities on each development, limiting options of lighting fixtures and benches, and to removed stamped concrete as an option for paved sidewalks. The Commission will discuss further at a future meeting. 7. Discussion regarding Single Family Residential – Estate zoning Miller presented the Commission with the diagram of 1.5 acre lots vs. 2 acre lots with 150-foot frontage as previously requested. Miller stated that the subcommittee is working to revise some verbiage in the recommendation memo and will present it at a future meeting. 8. Discussion regarding possible training topics for the Commission No other suggestions were received. 9. Consideration and possible action regarding future Planning and Zoning Commission meeting dates Miller informed the Commission that the next regular meeting will be Thursday, May 17 and after that will be Thursday, June 7 and Thursday, June 21. 10. Communications from the Commission O’Farrell stated that he had a conversation with a developer this week and he said that Aubrey was very helpful in providing development information. Gibson stated that two recommendations made by P&Z to City Council recently were turned down and he questioned whether or not P&Z is out of tune with City Council; he also questioned if Council is pushing for commercial businesses rather than aesthetics. McLean stated that the fast track process for zone changes may not be beneficial for some items. He stated that in the future, maybe P&Z should table items that may need further discussion or thought. He is concerned that the Council meetings go on until late hours and by the time zoning items come up, everyone is tired. O’Farrell stated that maybe it would be more beneficial for more of the Commissioners to go downstairs and present their thoughts and findings in order to convey concerns more effectively. Miller explained that the application types recently have not been typical applications – one being the Gold and Silver Buyers, the personal care facility and the used car sales. Gibson stated that he attended CEDC. 5 May 7, 2012 P&Z Meeting 11. Reports A. Council Liaison - None B. Staff - Miller stated that the personal care facility was denied on 2nd reading and the used car lot was approved on 2nd reading. 12. The regular meeting was adjourned at 8:01pm. These minutes respectfully submitted by: Aubrey Harbin Aubrey Harbin Development Specialist/P&Z Secretary