HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 2002-12-19 Regularr
l
Mi nutes of� Regular Meeting
of the
Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission
December 19, 2002
A regular meeting of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission was held Thursday,
December 19, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the city hall co.uncil chambers located at 910 S. Friendswood
Drive, Friendswood, Texas. The following members were present:
Bob Be1irand
Niels Aalund -7:02 P.M.
Michele Brek ke
Tom Burke
Jim Gibson
Zekie Mc Veigh
Tom Samson
Diana Steelquist -CD Coordinator
Dan Johnson -Deputy Director Community Development
Loren Smith -City Attorney
ShannonXimmell-City Council Liaison
With a quorum present, Chairman Bertrand called the meeting to order to consider the following:
Call to order:
1.Comm unications from the public.
Comm issioner Brekke took this oppo1iunity to· repo1i on the Galveston County
Consolidated Drainage District (GCCDD) meeting she attended. At the meeting, a
discussion was held regarding an· inter-local agreement between Harris County and
GCCDD to clear trees 30 feet back along Clear Creek. A similar· plan will be
implemented within ten years to clear trees along the Galveston County side of the Creek.
Commissioner Aalund arrived at this time.
Vice-chairman Burke asked staff to review the site plan approval conditions for H.E.B.
He is concerned about some of the screening along FM 528.
2.Consent Agenda:
A.Approval of the 11-04-02 sp·ecial meeting minutes.
B.Approval of the 11-21-02 regular meeting minutes.
C.Appl'oval of the final plat of the Legacy Estates subdivision located off FM 518.
Motion:
Second:
Vote for:
Amended
Motion:
Second:
Aalund -to approve the consent agenda
Burke
Unanimous Motion Carried
Aalund -to approve the consent agenda with correction to page two of the
11-21-02 minutes
Burke
Page 1 of 5
12/19/02 P&Z
Vote for: Unanimous Motion Carried
Chairman Bertrand had a comment regarding the minutes of 11-21-02. Under the special
reports section on page two, the second issue he i·epo11ed on was on the consolidation of
detention ponds such as the area behind the old Gerland's store off FM 528.
3.Consideration and possible action regarding·a request for a Specific Use Permit-Church
Facilities being 8.136 acres, located at 1804 S. Friendswood Drive, in the Hope Lutheran
Church Subdivis ion, Galveston County, Texas.
Motion:
Second:
Vote for:
Amended
Motion:
Second:
Vote for:
Samson -to recommend city council approval of the Specific Use Permit
Gibson
Unanimous Motion Carried
Samson -to modify the site plan by striking the word 'tempora1y' in the
label for the detention pond located in Phase I of the Master Plan.
Gibson
Unanimous Motion Carried
Chaitman Be11rand stated that a joint public hearing had been held Monday evening to
receive comments. Ms. Jane Rebrescher addressed the Commission for the Church.
Commissioner Burke had some questions regarding the site plan with ·regards to off-site
detention; fire lanes and existing structures on the site. He was paiiicularly concerned
with the proposed detention pond location as it was labeled 'tempora1y'. He wanted to
know where the detention would be moved. Ms. Rebrescher stated that the location of
the pond on the site plan was the permanent location and that there was an offsite location
for the additional parking ai·ea to be built in Phase II of the construction.
4.Discussion regarding the Conceptual Plan for Clear· Creek Townhomes being a 45.85
acre tract located off W. Bay Area Blvd. south of the :)3lack Hawk treatment facilities.
Mr. Dick Duffy, 4505 Hwy 6 North, Houston, Texas, addressed the Commission
regarding the conceptual plan for a gated cluster home development located off W. Bay
Area Blvd. Of the 45 acres in the tract, only 16 to 17 acres can be developed due to
special flood areas. Much of the green sp·ace required for the development will be
located in the detention area and flood ai·eas. The development proposes a density of six
units per acre. Mr. Duffy said that he has _found a mai·ket for this type of housing. His
concept includes a rear-loading feature -the townhomes front a centralized green ai·ea
and automobile access is from the rear.
Commissioner Burke asked how this development _was related to Mr. Duffy's_ other
development, Friendswood Lake Estates, located across W. Bay Area. Mr. Duffy stated
-that this area was not needed as previously discussed for detention for the proposed
subdivision. There was some concern expressed by the Commissi oners regarding the
project's location next to the Blackhawk wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Duffy stated
that there was a 150-foot set back from the plant and that in the several trips he had made
Page 2 of 5
12/19/02 P&Z
[ i
I l
l
to the site, there was no noticeable odor. Chairman Bertrand commented that it would be
a fair assessment that the Commission would ente1tain this type of development.
5.Consideration and possible action regarding the Preliminaiy plat of Friendswood Lake
Estates, Section One, being a 68.689 acres off W. Bay Area Blvd. south of Autumn
Creek.
-Motion:
Second:
Vote for:
'
Burke -to approve the preliminaiy plat contingent upon staff comments
being addressed
Samson
Unanimous Motion Carried
Mr. Dick Duffy, the developer, addressed the Commission. Mr. Duffy received the staff
comments and had no issues with addressing them. He will change the subdivision name
so as not to conflict with an existing development. He has also contacted League City
with regai·ds to the abandonment of Grissom Rd., which abuts the development.
Landis Kem, of Coastal Bend Properties, addressed the Commission regai·ding questions
about drainage and the number of entrances. A HEC 2 study was done to evaluate the
detention needed. Reserve 'C' will be a lake/detention ai·ea. The developers are also
requesting a median cut on W. Bay Area Blvd. at the development's entrance.
At this time, the discussion regarding Cluster Homes was moved up on the agenda.
6.Discussion ahd possible action regai·ding Cluster Home Developments (45 minutes).
Chairman Bertrand asked the vice-chairman to lead the discussion. Commissioner Burke
stated the concept of the cluster home development was to preserve open space, which
would legally· prevent any future development of an area. The advantage is· 1ess
infrastrncture in an area, and therefore, less infrastrncture for the City to maintain in the
future. Cluster homes also fill a need for empty nesters and the prope1ties appreciate
faster than traditional homes. There are also ecological benefits in terms of tree
preservation and air quality. The cunent ordinance has some inconsistencies, which need
to be addressed. First, there is a typographical en-or regarding the percentage of open
•space required, it should read 'equivalent to fifteen percent to forty percent'.
Another item is under Section 2, b., regarding density. As currently written, if the current
zoning of a piece of property is SFR, than the maximum density allowed is 2. 7 units per
acre for a cluster home. development since it is the weighted average of the underlying
zones' densities. In order to increase the density, the ai·ea would have to be rezoned to a
multi-family district, which historically has not been viewed favorably. Since cluster
ho�es require rezoning to a PUD, he suggested the ordinance be changed to allow the
density to increase to six units per acre through the PUD/SUP process.
Item 2, e. cunently allows modification of street width requirements so long as no homes
front on it. He proposed allowing street modifications regardless of the lot orientation so
Page 3 of 5
12/19/02 P&Z
long as the modifications are adequate for delivery of services and for emergency
equipment access. Streets, which have residences fronting them, may then be reduced in
width, or even eliminated, provided that adequate off-street parking is provided for any
visitors. This change to the ordinance will allow for neo-urbanism design in a cluster
development.
The next recommended change regarded Item 2, j. which addresses the type of
development allowed in the open space. Cu11"ently, only detention infrastructure is
allowed. By inserting the words 'above· ground', open space areas could contain other
under ground utilities such as power, water, and sanitary sewer lines.
Also Item 2, j., (2.) the tree requirement should be taken out. This would allow a cluster
home development with open space located in areas which naturally do not have trees.
Item 2, j., (3} should also be deleted or changed to reflect the detention slope
requireme11ts in our Design Criteria Manual of 4 to 1.
Under item 2, j., (4).the words ' and improve' should be deleted and the word 'green'
replaced with 'open'. These changes would remove the requirement for an HOA to
improve an open space. This is in keeping with the definition of open space, which
promotes natural open areas.
Vice-chairman Burke added that the review and revision of the cluster home pmtion of
the Zoning Ordinance would help promote this type of development. Commissioner
Samson commented that item 2., j, (2.) regarding the trees did not need to be deleted as it
was qualified by the te1ms 'naturally prevalent'. He interpreted it to read that if there
were no naturally prevalent trees, that portion of the ordinance would not apply. Other
wise he was in agreement with the proposed changes. Chairman Bertrand recalled the
discussion, which took place when originally formulating the cluster home ordinance
with regards to preserving trees and green space. The intent was to have some way to
preserve trees while development was taking place or to return the trees later. Be1trand
had had the words 'naturally prevalent' added and it was imp lied that if trees were not on
the site, the requirements would not apply. Commissioners Burke and Brekke noted that
if the proposed tree ordinance were in place, the tree requirements in the cluster
ordinance would not be needed. Commissioner Gibson advised leaving j.(2) in place
until the tree ordinance was adopted by council.
Commissioner Aalund asked why under j.(4) the words 'and improve' should be struck.
Burke responded the revised ordinance would not prohibit a Home Owners Association
from improving open space but asked why it should be a law that they had to make
improvements.. The Commissioners did not want to prohibit imp rovements but were in
agreement that improvements should not be mandated. Commissioner Burke
recommended the City Attorney investigate any legal issues or comt rulings pertaining to
cluster homes and open space maintenance.
Chairman Be1trand stated the need to be clear on the PUD-Cluster Home process. The
Coordinator stated she had never processed a cluster home request. The Deputy Director
Page 4 of 5
12/19/02 P&Z
[ 1
[
recommended staff review the proposed changes and present a cleaned up version to the
Commission for fmther comment or recommendation to City Council.
7.Discussion and pos�ible action regarding the Tree Preservation Ordinance (45 minutes).
The Chairman went through the discussion guide he had prepared. Giving some brief
background on the past discussions. There are cunent ordinance requirements for the
planting of trees but little in the way of tree protection. The ordinance from Hunter's Creek
Village was used as a template and integrated with Friendswood's specific.needs. During
the sub-committee meetings, there was much discussion regarding using an arborist though
the present proposal does not require one. Another issue that was not addressed was thedesignation of historical trees and the need for an overall community plan for preserving
trees ·of historical significance, including an update of the qualified tree list. However, the
three main goals of the proposed ordinance dealt with a tree removal permit, better tree
surveys and requiring tree protection during on site construction.
Commissioner Brekke asked if the ordinance requirements would be retro-active. The City
Attorney advised that the proposed changes would be effective from the date of adoption
for new developments.· Commissioner Gibson suggested a review of the Qualified Tree
List. Commissioners Samson and Aalund questioned the enforcement of the proposed
ordinance. The Chairman stated that enforcement would take place during inspections and
by the Code Enforcement Officer. Commissioner Burke suggested the preparation of a
schedule for the Cod� Enforcement Officer to follow outlining the dates for follow-up
inspections· after one and five years. The City Council Liaison stated his thoughts that the
tree disposition plan would be onerous on developers. The City Attorney noted that the
draft prepared was excellent but suggested a definition of 'large acreage tract' with regards
to the tree survey requirements. Commissioner Brekke responded that the definition could
be supplied by the Director of Community Development and Public Works thus giving the
developer and the City son:ie latitude in deciding when an aerial survey could be accepted.
Jt was also noted that the cunent ordinance requirements would need to be repelled or
revised. Regarding specifics of the proposed ordinance, Commissioner Brekke
recommended a change from references to the number of trees to the caliper of trees. With
a few other minor revisions, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend a new tree
preservation ordinance to City Council.
·Motion:
Second:
Vote for:
Burke -to recommend a new tree preservation ordinance to City Council
with amendments as discussed.
Brekke
Unanimous Motion Carried
1i!l�
Development Coordinator
Page 5 of 5
12/19/02 P&Z