Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 2013-06-03 Special PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JOINT PUBLIC HEARING 1. The JPH was called to order at 7:30pm with the following people in attendance: Chairman Mark McLean Vice Chairman Mark Tibbitts Commissioner Jim Gibson Commissioner Arthur Triplette Commissioner Jim Nye Commissioner David O’Farrell Steve Weathered, City Attorney Aubrey Harbin, Development Specialist Mona Miller, Planner Nick Haby, PIO/Planning Manager City Council Absent: Brown 2. Receive comments from the public, both oral and written, regarding: A. A request to change the zoning classification at 111 E. Willowick Avenue, from Downtown District (DD) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), to allow NAICS use #513 “Broadcasting and Telecommunications;” to accommodate the existing tower and to permit the addition of new antennas and associated equipment onto the existing tower and expansion of the site for such purposes Nick Haby explained that there is an existing tower on this site and the applicant is requesting to expand the compound, add a co-locator on the tower and two small equipment buildings. He explained that Crown Castle, the applicant, has an existing contract agreement with the City to lease approximately 4600 square feet and that the proposed additions will all be within the current lease area. Nancy Stiles, Friendswood, stated that the tower is an eyesore in the downtown area and asked that they not be allowed to make it bigger. She stated that the property has potential for commercial development but no one will develop it with the tower there. MINUTES OF A SPECIAL & REGULAR MEETING HELD MONDAY, JUNE 3, 2013 AT 7 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 910 S. FRIENDSWOOD DRIVE FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS 2 June 3, 2013 P&Z Meeting B. A request to change the zoning classification at 2603 FM 528, from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), to allow NAICS use #22112 Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution, to accommodate the existing electric station; and to allow NAICS use #513 Broadcasting and Telecommunications, to accommodate the existing tower and permit the construction of an additional tower Nick Haby explained that this is an existing transmission/distribution site for Centerpoint Energy and already has an existing communication tower and that they are proposing to add an additional 180-foot communication tower. No one spoke for or against the proposal. C. A request to change the zoning classification at 112 W. Edgewood Drive, from Community Shopping Center (CSC) to Community Shopping Center – Specific Use Permit (CSC-SUP) to allow NAICS use #454 Non-store retailers for a Watermill Express Nick Haby explained that this is a proposal to add a Watermill Express in the parking lot at this location. No one spoke for or against the proposal. 3. The JPH adjourned at 8:02pm. REGULAR MEETING (2nd floor conference room, immediately following JPH) 1. The regular meeting was called to order at 8:06pm with the following people in attendance: Chairman Mark McLean Vice Chairman Mark Tibbitts Commissioner Jim Gibson Commissioner Arthur Triplette Commissioner Jim Nye Commissioner David O’Farrell Steve Weathered, City Attorney Aubrey Harbin, Development Specialist Mona Miller, Planner Nick Haby, PIO/Planning Manager Absent: Brown 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.) Ruth Ann Manison, Friendswood, stated that she owns the property on Hunters Lane beside Hope Lutheran Church and behind Chara Christian Dance Academy and would like to discuss the possibility of sharing a ground sign with Chara Christian Dance Academy. She stated that they think it would be neater and tidier to have one sign that 3 June 3, 2013 P&Z Meeting would serve both parcels, but that her parcel does not have the frontage to allow her to place her sign on FM518. Rick Kelly, Watermill Express representative, stated that regarding the Specific Use Permit request for the Watermill, at the previous P&Z meeting comments were made that the site is under parked and that if the occupancy of the center went back to retail, it would be even more deficient in parking. He stated that the church parking requirements are more than retail requirements so if it goes back to retail, the parking ratios would be fine. Matt Roll and Jason Holter, Friendswood, stated that they will be tenants in the building with Ruth Ann Manison and that they support a change in the sign ordinance. Matt stated that it would be valuable to growing their businesses and employing Friendswood residents and ultimately residents spending more money in Friendswood. He stated that locating the sign on FM518 rather than Hunters Lane, which is the entrance to a residential neighborhood, would keep the area cleaner and would be aesthetically more pleasing. 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approval of minutes for the meeting held: 1) May 16, 2013 Motion to approve: Triplette Second: O’Farrell Vote: 6 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried 4. Consideration and possible action regarding the Preliminary Plat of Clearwood Business Park, being a 4.297 acre tract of land out of part of Division “B” of Lot 64, Hoidale- Coffman Addition, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Volume 3, Page 6, Map Records of Harris County, Texas Motion to approve with staff comments: Gibson Second: Tibbitts Vote: 6 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried Miller explained that preliminary and final plats were approved on this tract before, but that when they began digging to install the infrastructure, they discovered Exxon easements and drilling sites of which they were not aware. She explained that the project was on hold and the owners have spent a couple of years negotiating with Exxon and since their plats expired, they are required to start over from the beginning. Staff comments: 1) Remove 10’ Landscape Buffer 2) Update title in title block. O’Farrell asked if the detention pond exists and why the landscape buffer needs to be removed from the plat. Miller explained that the detention pond does not currently exist and that the landscape buffer is a site plan requirement, not a platting requirement. 5. Consideration and possible action regarding a request to change the zoning classification at 111 E. Willowick Avenue, from Downtown District (DD) to Planned Unit 4 June 3, 2013 P&Z Meeting Development (PUD), to allow NAICS use #513 “Broadcasting and Telecommunications;” to accommodate the existing tower and to permit the addition of new antennas and associated equipment onto the existing tower and expansion of the site for such purposes Motion to approve: O’Farrell Second: Triplette Vote: 6 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried Miller explained that this site is where the old City Hall building was located and that a lease agreement was executed in 1992 for an area to house the existing tower. She explained that the applicant/leasee, Crown Castle, is staying within the existing lease area of 4632 square feet. They are expanding the fenced area, adding antennas and small equipment buildings. She explained that this will also bring the zoning of the existing tower into compliance with the current Zoning Ordinance. She explained that currently, it is considered a legal non-conforming use, but in order to expand the use, they are required to rezone the property so that it is in compliance with current ordinances. Haby stated that the agreement with Crown Castle is a 50 year agreement and they have an option to renew every 10 years. He explained that it has been in place for 20 years and 30 years remain. McLean confirmed that the applicant is not enlarging the tower, but they are expanding the fenced area and adding equipment buildings. Haby stated that the City receives revenue from the addition of a co-locator on the tower. Tibbitts verified with the applicant that the addition will improve service and they responded that that is the intent. Triplette verified that even if the Commission did nothing tonight, the tower is going to remain and staff confirmed that yes, the tower would remain. O’Farrell asked about the decibels of the generator that will be located on the site. Art Almanza, applicant, stated that it is an emergency generator only and is 50kw. Gibson asked about the fence height. Miller and Mr. Almanza, applicant, agreed that the existing fence is about 8-9 feet in height. There was also some discussion about the surrounding zoning. 6. Consideration and possible action regarding a request to change the zoning classification at 2603 FM 528, from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), to allow NAICS use #22112 Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution, to accommodate the existing electric station; and to allow NAICS use #513 Broadcasting and Telecommunications, to accommodate the existing tower and permit the construction of an additional tower Motion to approve: O’Farrell 5 June 3, 2013 P&Z Meeting Second: Gibson Vote: 6 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried Miller explained that this is an existing electric power distribution station and telecommunications tower owned and operated by Centerpoint Energy. She explained that the PUD zoning would allow for the legal non-conforming uses to come into compliance with the existing Zoning Ordinance in order for them to add the additional tower. Gibson verified with the staff that the new tower will be 180 feet in height and asked the applicant what the tower will be used for. Mr. Allen Varner, Centerpoint, stated that the tower will be specifically for the use of Centerpoint’s smart grid system. Tibbitts asked the applicant what type of tower they are proposing – derrick or pole type. Mr. Varner, stated that it would be a derrick type tower. Nye verified with the applicant that the new tower will help with the communication of the new smart meters and that the 180-foot height is needed for line of sight communication with the meters. Mr. Varner stated that the meters communicate with take-out points and the take-out points communicate with the tower and that the full 180 feet is required. McLean stated that he drove out to the site and that it needs to be maintained and mowed and asked Mr. Varner to pass along the information to get that taken care of. 7. Consideration and possible action regarding a request to change the zoning classification at 112 W. Edgewood Drive, from Community Shopping Center (CSC) to Community Shopping Center – Specific Use Permit (CSC-SUP) to allow NAICS use #454 Non-store retailers for a Watermill Express Motion to approve: Gibson Second: Tibbitts Vote: 3 to 3 (O’Farrell, Nye and Triplette opposed) Motion Failed Gibson stated that the applicant did what the Commission asked (meaning that the application was brought back as a SUP). (Staff initially processed this application as a commercial site plan, however, there was some concern about the NAICS use that it was classified under. Staff initially processed it under NAICS #81299 All Other Personal Services/Coin-Operated personal services machine concession operator, which in the CSC zone was a permitted use. Several Commissioners felt that it was better classified under #454 Non Store Retailers, which either required a SUP under #454 or was not allowed under #4542 Vending Machine Operators. Since the proposal is a permanent structure, and not vending machines that can be picked up and moved from location to location and require storage at a central location, staff opted to process the application as a SUP under the NAICS #454 Non Store Retailers classification.) O’Farrell asked if the applicant had any insight to the occupancy of the adjacent strip center being changed back to retail. Rick Kelly, Watermill Express, stated that he did not and that his previous comments were in response to comments that were made at the 6 June 3, 2013 P&Z Meeting May 16, 2013, meeting. He stated that by taking two parking spaces away, if the center was to revert back to retail, it would not negatively affect the parking ratios for the retail calculations. Harbin explained that with the allowable 5% deviation in the parking requirements, the tract is 47 parking spaces short and that if the center were to go back to retail, the parking requirements would be less than what is required for the church. O’Farrell stated that the strip center has been 50% vacant for years and he feels that inadequate parking may be a contributing factor. He stated that he is concerned with blighted areas because of inadequate parking. He stated that the church ambitions are to expand into the retail center. He stated that if the City lets businesses maintain with less than adequate parking the result is vacancy, high turnover rates and ultimately businesses locating elsewhere. Gibson stated that he has never seen that parking lot full except on Sundays. He stated that he does not think a lack of parking is the only problem with the strip center and that he thinks the AT&T building is the problem. O’Farrell agreed and stated that when they sold frontage to AT&T it harmed the sight line of the building and property. Tibbitts verified with the applicant that they are still proposing the new style of structure versus the old windmill style. Kelly confirmed that they are still proposing the new style and that it has some features that allow them to color match their structure with adjacent buildings and strip centers. O’Farrell stated that HEB frontage has been sold off and they do not have problems keeping buildings occupied. McLean stated that he objected last time because he felt that the use was not allowed and that he suggested a SUP application as a minimum. He stated that the Permitted Use Table is ambiguous when it comes to this use and there are different types of NAICS use codes that are not applicable here, but that he will support the application as presented. Nye stated that he will not be supporting the application for the same reasons as O’Farrell. 8. Consideration and possible action regarding proposed amendments to Appendix C – Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.M.2., regarding farmers markets Motion to approve: O’Farrell Second: Triplette Vote: 6 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried Miller explained that this in the Zoning Ordinance Section 8 under Outdoor Sales and this topic was discussed at the May 16 P&Z meeting. She explained that the proposal is to add a section to the ordinance which addresses Farmers Markets. She explained that a 7 June 3, 2013 P&Z Meeting few changes were made since the last meeting including limiting types of items sold under definition (no resale or craft items) to avoid flea market or garage sale type events. She stated that she also added hours of operation and days are limited to Saturday and Sunday and requires the removal of all tables, equipment, tents after the event each month. Miller explained that the proposed application is reflective of the proposed changes in the ordinance. McLean stated that he thinks this addresses previous concerns. Miller explained that we do not have anyone actively pursuing a farmers market, but that staff would like to have the ordinance in place before an application is made. She also explained that if a farmers market was to be held on public property (city owned) the Parks Department would process that application. 9. Discussion regarding possible amendments to Appendix A - Sign Ordinance No action taken. Miller stated that the immediate concern is that a property owner recently subdivided a commercial lot and now does not have street frontage to locate her sign on FM 518. She explained that the subject property has one commercial lot between her and FM 518 so she is not allowed to install the sign on FM518. Miller explained that the ordinance does not allow off-premise signs. Gibson stated that other property owners will have same issue in other locations. Miller explained that there are some allowances in the Sign Ordinance for businesses to share signs, but they do not apply in this situation. Harbin provided some examples of other properties where changing the Sign Ordinance might either create some unintended consequences or help other property owners with signage. McLean stated that he remembers replatting the Whataburger site in order to allow them to install a sign on FM 518. Harbin explained that staff does try to bring sign issues up during the platting process. Harbin explained that even if the plat was revised, there is no way to issue permits for the signs because the Sign Ordinance is very specific as to number and location of signage allowed. She explained that the four businesses would like to have one ground sign on FM 518, but the Sign Ordinance does not allow for off premise signs or for businesses to share a sign unless they are housed in the same building. Miller stated that this tract is different, too, because both lots front Hunters Lane rather than FM 518. 8 June 3, 2013 P&Z Meeting O’Farrell spent a lot of time several years ago revising Sign Ordinance – concerns back then business not buying front row square footage, but buying into signage that is front row. Gibson asked if it would it be possible for them to lease time on the electronic sign owned by Chara Christian Dance. Miller stated that would be considered off-premise signage and would not be allowed. O’Farrell stated that his sign people say that in 5-10 years, all signs will be electronic. There was much discussion about why this is an issue and suggestions on how to fix it, but no solutions available at this time. Harbin explained that if the problem was fixed with platting, they would be permitted to have two ground signs on FM 518 and the business owners are proposing to put four business signs on one ground sign. Harbin stated that if the Commission is agreeable, staff can research and come up with some options that will not only work for this property, but also for others and not result in any unintended consequences. The consensus of the Commission was to allow staff to research the issue and come back with some suggestions on possible solutions. 10. Consideration and possible action regarding future Planning and Zoning Commission meeting dates Next regular meeting will be Thursday, June 20, 2013. After that, the next regular meeting would be July 4 but there is the possibility of having Joint Work Session items with Council on July 1. Motion to NOT meet on July 4; if necessary have a special and/or regular meeting on July 1st: McLean Second: Gibson Vote: 6 to 0 (unanimous) Motion Carried 11. Communications from the Commission Tibbitts thanked Mona for all her hard work since he has been on the Commission and wished her luck. Nye agreed said that he has enjoyed working with Mona and wished her luck. Gibson and Triplette agreed with other Commissioners and thanked Mona. O’Farrell stated that for 20 years he has brought plats to the City and has been on the Commission for 5 years and the current staff is the high water mark. McLean stated that he has learned a great deal from Mona appreciates everything she has done for him and for the community. 12. Reports 9 June 3, 2013 P&Z Meeting A. Council Liaison – None B. Staff – Haby reported that the votes downstairs in the City Council meeting for the 1st reading of items on tonight’s agenda were as follows: Willowick rezoning – unanimous FM 528 rezoning – 4 to 3 Watermill Express SUP – 6 to 1 13. The meeting adjourned at 9:13pm. These minutes respectfully submitted by: Aubrey Harbin Aubrey Harbin Development Specialist/P&Z Secretary