HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 2004-06-17 Regularl I
Minutes of a Regular Meeting
of the
Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 2004
A regular meeting of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission was held
Thursday, June 17, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the city hall council chambers located at 910 S.
Friendswood Drive, Friendswood, Texas. The following members were present:
Bob Be1trand
. David Brakebill
Tom Burke
Jim Gibson
Roy Klusendorf
Kevin Holland
Sherry Weesner
Loren Smith -City Attorney
Diana Steelquist-Planner
Rhonda Baker -CDD Secretary
With a quomm present, Chaiiman Be1trand called the meeting to order to discuss the
following:
Call to order:
Regular Meeting:
1.Communications from the Commission.
Commissioner Holland congratulated Commissioner Burke and Chairman
Bertrand on their re-appointment to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
2.Communications from the public.
No one spoke from the public at this time.
3.Consent Agenda:
Motion:
Second:
A.Approval of the 5-20-04 regular meeting minutes.
B.Approval of the 6-7-04 special meeting minutes.
Holland-to approve consent agenda
Brakebill
Chairman Bertrand stated on item A of the consent agenda the word change on
page three needed to be made.
Voted For: Unanimous Motion Carried
4.Consideration and possible action regarding Zone Classification change for
prope1ty located at Woodland Trail at F.M. 2351-tract one and two out of lots 39
and 40, Hoidale and Coffman Subdivision, Galveston County, Texas, from: Single
Family Residential (SFR), to Office Park District (OPD).
Page 1 of 6
6/17/04 P& Z
Chairman Bertrand stated that Mr. Rucker was concerned that he did not have an
opportunity to address the comments and concerns at the public hearing. At that
time, Chairman Bertrand explained to Mr. Rucker since the public hearing went so
long, he would give him .the opp01tunity to speak when the item was before
Planning and Zoning. Chairman Bertrand also stated that Mr. Rucker had a
scheduling issue and contacted the city in writing.requesting the item be tabled so
he may have the opportunity to address the publics concerns. The item will then be
placed on the July 1, 2004 agenda for discussion at which time Mr. Rucker has
stated he can attend that meeting.
Commissioner Holland stated that some of the public involved in the item are
clients of his company, so there might be a conflict of interest, therefore, he must
absent himself from any discussion or consideration.
Motion:
Second:
Motion:
Brakebill-to approve
Klusendorf
Gibson-to table item
Second: Klusendorf
Voted For: Bertrand, Gibson, Klusendorf
Voted Against: Brakebill, Weesner
Recused: Burke, Holland Motion Carried
5.Consideration and possible action regarding Preliminary Plat of Oak Creek
Forest Subdivision located at the end of Thomas Street.
Motion:
Second:
Amended
Motion:
Second:
Voted For:
Holland-to approve
Gibson
Holland-to approve with Staff comments
Gibson
Unanimous Motion Carried
Christian Offenburger, surveyor, addressed the Commission. Commissioner
Holland asked what the applicant would do with the R.O.W. on Crawford.
Commissioner Burke asked about the outfall of the drainage. The Developer will
build a concrete cul-d-sac at the end of Thomas. The drainage plan is being revised
to resolve the outfall problem as noted on the staff comments. Staff assured the
Commission that all staff comments on the preliminary would be addressed prior to
submittal of the final plat.
6.Consideration and possible action regarding Amending Zoning Ordinance/Building
Code-Industrialized Housing and Buildings.
Motion: Holland-to approve
Page 2 of 6
6/17/04 P& Z
Second:
Voted For:
Amended
Motion:
Second:
Voted For:
Burke
Unanimous
Holland-to approve with modification
Burke
Unanimous
Motion Carried
Motion Carried
The Chairman noted that this item had been discussed previously as well as work
shopped with the City Council. Commissioner Brakebill asked that the language
in the recommended ordinance be modified to remove some duplication of stated
requirements. The Chairman captioned for the public the role of Home Owners
Associations who can also regulate Industrialized Housing within a subdivision.
7.Consideration and possible action regarding Amending Zoning Ordinance
Revisions to the Permitted Use Table and Parking Requirements.
Motion:
Second:
Voted For:
Holland-to approve
Gibson
Unanimous Motion Carried
The Chairman gave a brief history regarding the proposed amendments. He related
that the changes to the parking requirements were a result of P&Z discussions
regarding the parking required for an office park facility where the number of
spaces required was inappropriate to the use. During those discussions, the
Commission recommended that the parking requirements be taken out of the PUT
and placed as guidelines in the Design Criteria Manual. The use of guidelines
versus parking requirements allows the developer, Staff and the Commission to
make reasonable judgments on the parking needed for each individual
development. Changes to those guidelines are also more easily made to the Design
Criteria Manual than to the Zoning Ordinance.
The Chairman also stated that in addition to the parking issue the Commission had
also recommended changes to the PUT to allow Use # 71399_0 All Other
Amusement and Recreation Industries and Use# 44112 Used Car Sales, both with
Specific Use Pe1mits, in certain zoning districts. These were additional changes to
the PUT which were being considered.
Commissioner Burke was in favor of the use of pai·king guidelines so long as the
"to be decided' (TBD) category allows the City to have adequate parking with
more open space, less imperious cover and less runoff. He wanted to remind
everyone that the issue of parking and mini-warehouses still needed to be
addressed.
Commissioner Brakebill suggested that the list of uses be put in alpha order in the
Design Criteria manual so that it is easier to read.
Page 3 of 6
6/17/04 P& Z
8.Consideration and possible action regarding Amending Zoning Ordinance-Cluster
Homes.
Motion:
Second:
Amended
Motion:
Second:
Voted For:
Burke-to approve
Gibson
Gibson -to table
Burke
Unanimous Motion Carried
Chairman Bertrand noted that John Hammond had spoken at the public hearing
regarding the proposed changes. Staff summarized Mr. Hammond's comments as
a request for an increase in lot coverage based on the percentage of open space as
well as reduction in lot set backs to 5 feet on the sides. Staff believes the increase
in lot coverage is reasonable. Commissioner Weesner stated her understanding of
Mr. Hammond's comments to be that he wanted a system in place where a
developer could come in and negotiate with staff and the Commission variances to
some of the development standards such as lot sizes, set backs and uses which
could then be approved by the Commission with regards to a Planned Unit
Development.
Chairman Bertrand asked the City Attorney if it was ok to make modifications to
the proposed changes to the Cluster Home Ordinance based on the comments
received at the Public Hearing. The City Attorney felt the changes discussed
would not require an additional hearing so long as the changes were not extensive.
Changes to the matrix and setbacks_ would probably require a new public hearing.
Commissioner Brakebill felt the changes to procedures requested by Friendswood
Development might be in conflict with the direction Council wanted with regards
to too much flexibility.
Chanman Bertrand expressed the need to move forward with the current
recommendation and then later address the ideas of Friendswood Development.
There was much discussion regarding Commissioner Brakebill' s solution to
Councilman Goza's comments on the Commission's discretion to increase the
density based on overall acreage.
Commissioner Holla nd asked that the item be work shopped again. He was not in
agreement with the current proposal of allowing a density of 6 units per acre; the
ordinance needs more work. Commissioner Weesner agreed that it should be done
right the first time; she would like more clarification on Councilman Goza's issue.
The Chairman agreed that getting it right the first time was important.
Commissioners Burke and Gibson suggested tabling the item until the next
meeting.
Page 4 of 6
6/17/04 P& Z
! i
9.Consideration and possible action regarding Amending Zoning Ordinance
Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use.
Motion:
Second:
Amended
Motion:
Second:
Voted For:
Holland -to recommend approval of PUD -Mixed Use
Gibson
Holland -to recommend approval of PUD -Mixed Use with
revisions: 1) change all references to parking requirements, 2)
Pre-app and Conceptual plan are required, 3) applications must
submit information in both drawings and in written documents, 4)
remove 35% residential restriction, 5) lighting must meet or exceed
city regulations, 6) street design must have more flexibility than is
currently allowed under the Subdivi�ion ordinance and the Design
Criteria Manual.
Gibson
Unanimous Motion Carried
Chai1man Bertrand expressed concern that the deliberative process needed to
·review each PUD -Mixed Use application may take more than 30 days.
Pruticularly with the proposed changes to the Pennitted Use Table (PUT) that
allow almost all uses in a PUD -Mixed Use. He added that a detailed
examination and review of the uses proposed with each application would need to
be made by the Commission.
Commissioner Burke noted that there were other proposed changes to the
Permitted Use Table with regards to parking requirements. These changes should
not be forgotten when preparing the Zoning Ordinance amendments on PUD
Mixed Use. He also stated that due to the complexity of a PUD-Mixed Use
project, a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting and a Conceptual
Plan presentation to the Commission need to be required as prut of the PUD
Mixed Use process. He also recommended that each application should contain
both written and illustrative documentation to aid in the understanding and
consideration of the request.
Burke also stressed that a Mixed Use development must have flexibility. For this
reason, he recommended references to the Subdivision Ordinance and Design
Criteria Manual be revised to allow the modification·of streets in a PUD-Mixed
Use district. He suggested these modifications should be incorporated in the
Design Standards submitted with each individual PUD-Mixed Use application.
Several of the Commissioners were also concerned about lighting. They
recommended that the lighting specifications in the ordinance needed to clearly
indicate that the lighting standards proposed in each PUD should meet or exceed
the current compliance requirements of the city lighting regulations.
The issue of flexibility was again discussed with regards to the staff
recommendation to limit residential use. Commissioner Burke stated that to be
Page 5 of 6
6/17/04 P& Z
tmly flexible, no limitation should be made. Some developments may need more
than a 35% residential component in order to be viable. The Staff stated that the •
purpose of the PUD-Mixed Use ordinance is to encourage economic development
not residential development. Staff also contended that there already exists a
residential market in Friendswood to support PUD-Mixed Use.
10.Discussion regarding the Conceptual Plan for the River Oaks at Friendswood a
proposed Cluster Home Development locat ed in and around the Sun Meadow golf
course.
Glen Rau, land planner for the owner, addressed the Commission. Mr. Rau
outlined a proposed cluster home development. Mr. Rau has seen the extensive
list of comments provided by staff and feels that all of them can be addressed.
Several Sun Meadow residents commented on the proposed development
including Fay Roberson, Ed Sherril and Laura Higgins. There concerns included
the density, safety of school children walking along the existing nruTow streets,
increased traffic,· construction traffic, the loss of trees, increased risk for flooding
and drainage issues as well as a reduction in home values and standard of living in
the Sun Meadow area.
11.Staff Report
Staff repmied on the upcoming dates for workshops and public hearings. A repmi
on Development Review Committee meetings for June was also provided. A brief
summary was given regarding the status of the Main Street Implementation plan.
In response to a question from the Chair at the last meeting, staff repmied that the
driveway for the retail center between Whataburger and Walgreen's was not
complete. The developer and building depruiment are aware of the 35 ft. wide
driveway requirement.
12.Adjournment
\
·,
With no fuliher comment the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Page 6 of 6
6/17/04 P& Z