The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutP&Z Minutes 2003-12-08 Special( 1 I l l Minutes of a Special Meeting of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2003 A special meeting_ of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission was held Monday, December 8, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. in the city hall council chambers located at 910 S. Friendswood Drive, Friendswood, Texas. The following members were present: Tom Burke Bob Bertrand Kevin Holland Diana Steelquist-City Planner Dan Johnson-Deputy Director CDD Mike Hodge -Director CDD & PW Commissioners Brekke, Brakebill, Gibson, and Y eretsky were absent. Mayor Brizendine called the meeting to order to discuss the following with the Commission. Joint Workshop Session Call to order: 1.Discussion with City Council regarding: A.Development Process Steering Committee recommendations regarding Commercial Site Plans and Amending/ Administrative Plats Mayor Brizendine started the discussion by asking each council member to voice their opinion and any questions on the issue of staff approval of Commercial Site Plans. Councilmember Ericsson expressed his opinion that the process should be left as is. Councilmember Measeles agreed. Measles also asked Staff to clarify how citizen input would be facilitated if the approval process were left just to staff. The City Manager explained that public input is solicited at the time the ordinances are put into place. However, should the current proposal be put in place, there would be no input. Commissioner Burke stated that the issue of public input should instead be referred to as public awareness. Councilmerriber Goza listed four issues related to the site plan approval process: time, money, public input and uncertainty. He asked why a staff report could not be presented to the Commission so as to satisfy the need for public awareness, as there is no public input per se. Chairman Bertrand indicated that there was a need for approvals to be· done in a public venue though he agreed thei.-e was no public input allowed during the approval process. He felt it is a bad process if Planning & Zoning disagrees after staff has approved the plan. Page 1 of 4 12/08/03 P & Z Councilmember Goza stated that proposed revisions to the zoning ordinance were a proactive approach to addressing problems on site plans; however, he did not believe that changes to a site plan should be done at the same time the Commission was approving the site plan in front of the person trying to get the approval. Commissioner Burke responded that perhaps the question should be "what is gained by having the P&Z Commission review and approve site plans?" He added that there was always going to be uncertainty on the ·part of the developer, whether they were getting approval from the Staff or from the Commission. Councilmember Ewing stated her belief that the approval process should remain the same. She also· stated her view that-what sets Friendswood apart from the sunounding communities is the level of citizen involvement on various committees and the Commission. Commissioner Holland responded that the Development Process Steering Committee (DPS) had been made up of citizen volunteers also. The DPS made these recommendations based_ on factual info1mation from comment cards, the previous Development Review Committee's report, and the assigned task to look for ways to streamline the development prqcess. Holland related his experience �s president of the Bay Area Builders Association and that when he had asked fo1: comment cards to be filled out from this group, no one wanted to supply their names. This illustrated to him that there is concern and uncertainty with the P&Z approval process. The goal of the DPS was to provide ways to stre�mline the development process and encourage economic development. The DPS recommended staff level approval of commercial site plans because it seemed beneficial and a win-win procedure. Councilmember Goza noted that the City had commissioned a market study at some expense� from CDS. One of the statements-of the study was the affect of uncertainty for commercial developers with regards to the P&Z Commission's involvement in the approval of commercial site plans. Chairman Bertrand agreed that when staff reviews a site plan, the letter of the law is met; however, there were some aspects regarding qualitative design options that are not discussed. In addition, safety issues and a proposed use next to a residential district are sometimes not addressed. The seven Commissioners do not dictate changes; rather they encourage a dialogue with· developers to improve site plans. The Commissioners are attempting to fulfill their oaths. He also felt it was impo1tant to let neighboring land holders be allowed to listen to the dialogue_ to ease their concerns about what is being built next door. Commissioner Burke added that there were 23 issues in the zoning ordinance wherein the Commission could make a qualitative decision ·with regards to a commercial site plan. He related two recent site plan approvals wherein the· Commission had added some requirements that improved the sites' future development and addressed safety concerns. Page2 of 4 12/08/03 P &-Z l i ·Councilmember Ericsson added that without reviewing commercial site plans on a regular basis, the Commission would not knciw what needed to be fixed in the cunent ordinances. Mayor Brizendine commented that the cunent process allows for informal citizen input. He added that the Commission and staff needed better communication. He stated that the ·community is the City's client. Councilmember David Smith commented that the issue was one of perception of the development process. He questioned the City Attorney regarding possible challenges to changes that are requested by P&Z during the approval if the plans already meet all the requirements per the City Code. The City Attorney stated that the additional requirements could be challenged but fr was not likely. Commissioner Burke responded that changes requested are based on qualitative decisions, which are permitted by the zoning ordinance. Further, these types of judgments cannot be codified and staff is reluctant to make these qualitative decisions. Chairman Bertrand added that it would be very difficult to write an ordinance, which would address every possible contingency or concern for each site plan. Mayor Brizendine stated that this negative recommendation would be placed on the next City Council agenda for consideration to reject or accept it. 'The other negative P&Z recommendation dealt with staff approval of Administrative plats. Mayor Brizendine asked for comments from the Council. Chairman Bertrand noted to the council, due to the process, the recommendation appeared to be negative. However, out of respect for Commissioner Holland, who chaired the DPS Committee, he was asked to make the original motion recommending approval. After discussion, it was voted down five to one. Councilmember Goza stated his issues and arguments regarding staff approvals of commercial site plans were the same issues and arguments he would make for staff approval of Administrative plats. Commissioner Holland stated that as Chair of the DPS Committee, the reco mmendation had been a means of streamlining the development process. The City Manager stated that the Staff was in agreement with the Commission because of the density �rid infill issues related to Administrative plats. Staff agree;:d that P&Z should maintain approval of these types of plats. Commissioner Burke added that it is the smaller subdivisions that often have the most issues. Page 3 of 4 12/08/03 P & Z 2.Adjournment With no further comment the joint workshop adjourned at 8: 15 p.m. Page 4 of 4 12/08/03 P & Z