Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 2002-08-15 Regularr I ! l Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission August 15, 2002 A regular meeting of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission was held Thursday, August 15," 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the city hall council chambers located at 910 S.Friendswood Drive, Friendswo od, Texas. The following members were present: Neils Aalund Bob Bertrand Tom Burke Zekie Mc Veigh Tom Samson Jim Gibson Michele Brekke Diana Steelquist -CD Coordinator Shannon Kimmell -Council Liaison Dan Johnson -Deputy Director of CD Mike Hodge -Director of CD and PW Loren Smith -City Attorney Karen Capps -Economic Development With a quorum present, Chairman Burke called the meeting to order to consider the following: Call to order: 1.Oaths of Office: Administer the Oath of Office for the appointment of new commissioners: Jim Gibson and Michele Brekke. The Development Coordinator administered the oaths for new Commission members, Jim Gibson and Michele Brekke. The new members were welcomed by the Chairman and other Commissioners. Tabled Items: 2.Discussion and possible action regarding the appointment of a Planning & Zoning Commission Liaison to the Galveston County Consolidated Drainage District (GCCDD). Motion: Second: Vote for: Bertrand -to remove from table Samson Unanimous Motion Carried Chairman Burke stated the recent histo1y regarding discussions with Drainage District representatives about landscaping requirements, detention and recreation reserves. It had been previously suggested that a representative from the Commission attend GCCDD meetings and vice-versa in order to get more insight on site specific subjects. Motion: Bertrand GCCDD to nominate Commissioner Samson as liaison to - 1 - 08/15/02 P&Z Second: Vote for: Aalund Unanimous Motion Carried Chau.man Burke suggested a six-month trial for Commissioner Samson to attend GCCDD meetings. The Development Coordinator will airnnge for the GCCDD agenda to be forwarded to Commissioner Samson. Commissioner Aalund requested that GCCDD reciprocate and appoint a liaison to the Commission and suggested Commissioner Samson make that suggestion to the GCCDD. Regular Items: 3.Communications from the public. None 4.Discussion regarding the Conceptual plan for Wilderness Creek Estates, a proposed subdivision located off Wilderness Trails. Robert Smith, acting for the owner, addressed the Commission. An approximately 19-acre tract with an existing house and the proposal will incorporate the home into the development. The request will be for open ditch lots of 120 feet in width; discharge will be into Chigger Creek. The City has commented on a need for a 25 to 30-foot easement for a proposed outfall for the Glen Shannon Subdivision to run along the side of the tract. The developer has located an existing outfall easement which runs along the boundary but is just outside of the tract in property owned by Dr. Boone. The Director of CD and PW stated the easement was needed to comply with the City's Master Drainage Plan and this was the best location for an additional easement. The Chairman recommended the developer meet with Staff and discuss the best way to achieve the requirements of the Master Drainage Plan. Commissioner Bertrand inquired as to the location and maintenance of the detention/recreation area. He suggested that the plat have better line definition between the reserve and the lots. · Mr. Smith also noted to the Commission that the development, though backing up to the creek, was outside the floodway and that no special flood problems exist. The Director of CD and PW also instrncted the developer to be aware of the street . alignment requirement per the Subdivision Ordinance. If the proposed street does not align with the existing intersection, there must be a minimum distance of 125 feet between the streets. The Chairman suggested Mr. Smith meet again with Staff to go over the City's Master Drainage Plan and street alignment issues. 5.Discussion regarding the Conceptual plan for Friendswood Hope Lutheran Church located at 1804 S. Friendswood Dr. -2 - 08/15/02 P&Z ! l J Ms. Jane Rebescher addressed the Commission for the Church. The plan for the church is to add an additional 2-acre parking lot and replace or expand some of the existing buildings. They will be submitting a Master Plan to amend their Specific Use Pe1mit and will be seeking building pe1mits and approval for Phase I of the plan. Commissioner Bertrand inquired about the new property's flood status. The new area to be used for parking is outside the floodway. Chairman Burke desc1ibed the SUP site plan process for phased developments in response to Commissioner Gibson's question on approval of a Master Plan. Commissioner Samson asked about the off-site detention shown on the site plan and was concerned about possible wetlands issues. Ms. Rebescher explained that as part of the land purchase agreement for the 2 additional acres, the seller agreed to provide the detention as the adjoining subdivision was developed. Staff also added that they were aware of the agreement between the Church and Legacy Estates. Staff also noted that the detention would need to be in place before the Church could construct the new parking area. Chairman Burke inquired about additional traffic from FM 518 and if a median cut would be needed. Sidewa lks were also discussed. At this time there are no sidewalks along FM 518 in this area, however, Commissioner Bertrand asked that the sidewalk note be placed on the plat and site plan to indicate side walks would be added at the time Phase II of the site were developed. 6.Discussion and possible action regarding subdivision Master Plans and conceptual plans. The Development Coordinator outlined the recent issues wherein a developer would not be tied to a conceptual plan once a rezoning had taken place. The Staff provided information from neighboring communities which use a Master Plan instead of a conceptual plan. A Master Plan requires an approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission and is binding on the developer. Significant changes to a Master Plan require a re-approval. Chairman Burke stated his take on the differences of a Conceptual Plan versus a Master Plan. He stated that the City's Subdivision Ordinance requirement for a conceptual plan was optional and non-binding arid did not see a need to change this. However, if we were to adopt a Master Plan concept it should be for phased development. Commissioner Bertrand stated. his view that the Planned Unit Development Zoning could address the concepts present in a Master Plan. The PUD is exact in how. development is done in a particular area. The process is more lab01ious and costly, but provides the most control for the City to protect itself. He was concerned that if a Master Plan process was put in place, any changes to a Master Plan, whether good or bad, would have to be re-approved by the Commission. - 3 - 08/15/02 P &Z Currently, staff reviews any changes in preliminary plats which differ from the conceptual plan. Councilman Kimmell indicated that City Council would like to see the Master Plan approval in place. The Director of CD and PW added in response to Chairman Burke's assertion that PUD zoning could be used and that Council was looking for a means of developmental control that was less cumbersome that PUD zoning. Commissioner Bertrand noted that, although a Master Plan could be approved for an area and rezoning take place in confo1mance to the Master Plan, the zoning would still take precedence. He postulated that land ownership could change and the zoning would remain. The new owner would be entitled to develop using the existing zoning without having to follow the Master Plan. The City Attorney thought that a Master Plan could have some specific zoning requirements that stayed with the property. Chairman Burke stated that this type of ordinance would be very similar to a PUD/SUP which is something we already have. Commissioner Bertrand also stated by instituting Master Plans where density and zoning was involved, the City would be micro-managing the zoning with some residential developments having density levels of 6.1 units per acre others with 2.3, etc. and after a while, zoning classifications would have little meaning. Commissioner Gibson stated that zoning to PUD was needed when a development had critical parameters. Chairman Burke noted the desire of City Council to change the perception that development using PUD and SUP takes time and the desire is to accelerate the develo pment process. Commissioner Be1trand noted that if any rules could be changed, he'd like to see a requirement that every parcel presented for rezoning be voted on individually. He felt this was the issue that most concerned him during recent considerations. The Director of CD and PW stated that this approach had been used with success in the past by the developers of Autumn Creek. Chairman Burke asked that staff prepare a memo to City Council regarding the discussion and how the PUD zoning could address some of the Council's concerns. 7.Discussion and possible action regarding possible zoning classifications for the area to be annexed in land swap with League City. Chairman Burke noted that a residential area off W. Bay Area was going to be given to League City in exchange for an area off FM 528. The discussion was whether to make a recommendation to City Council for the proposed zoning for the area to be acquired. Chairman Burke proposed Planned Unit Development or Business Park. Karen Capps stated she had spoken to representatives of the land owners, Steven Pole of CDC-Houston. Mr. Pole is also the West University City Planning & Zoning Commissioner. According to Ms. Capps, the land owner is - 4 - 08/15/02 P&Z I [ I l I interested in a zoning designation of CSC or Business Park because it would be easier to market and develop within these zones. The area is cunently zoned Single Family in League City. Chairman Burke would like to see PUD zoning to allow integrated development possibly with multi-family or a new town center area. The area is also a gateway to the City where more control over the types of development allowed could be a_chieved using PUD zoning. Commissioner Be1trand expressed concern over the timing of development when using a PUD/SUP of about fourteen weeks for approval process versus four to six weeks to approve a commercial site plan approval when the use is allowed. · He also noted that should the area be zoned as Business Park, it could be rezoned by the developer to PUD. Chairman Burke expressed his desire that the area ·be developed_ as a contiguous site. Since there was some time before a recommendation would be needed, the consensus was to place this item on a future agenda for further discussion perhaps with more input from the cun-ent prope1ty owner. 8.Consent Agenda: 9. A. Motion: Second: Vote for: Staff Reports Approval of the 08-01-02 regular meeting minutes. Samson -to approve the consent agenda Aalund Unanimous Motion Carried A.Scheduling new member orientation The Development Coordinator stated her desire to hold the new member orientation before the next regular meeting. After consulting with staff, the week of August 26th through August 30th was available for meeting dates. The consensus of the Commission was to hold the meeting on Monday August 26th at 5:30 P.M. 10.Adjournment. With no further comment, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M. -5 - 08/15/02 P &Z