The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutP&Z Minutes 2001-09-20 RegularI Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2001 A regular meeting of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission was held Thursday, September 20, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the city hall council chambers located at 910 S. Friendswood Drive, Friendswood, Texas. The following members were present: Neils Aalund Tom Burke Bob Bertrand Mark Clark Frank Frankovich Tom Samson Zekie Mc Veigh Mike Dominguez-City Planner Diana Steelquist -CD Coordinator Mike Hodge -CD Director Kim Mickelson -City Attorney Mel Measeles -Council Liaison With a quorum present, Chair Burke called the meeting to order to consider the following: Call to Order: 1.Continuation of the Public Hearing from August 6, 2001 to receive public input, either oral or written, regarding the following: A.Request for Amending Specific Use Permit -Church for Mary Queen Catholic Church located at 606 Cedarwood Drive, a 14.188 acre tract of land out of Lots 1 and 15, Block 3, Friendswood Subdivision, Galveston County, Texas. Chairman Burke read a September 19, 2001 letter received from Ken Sykes requesting that the public hearing and action again be tabled until the next regular meeting. An agreement between the Church and its neighbors is still not complete. Chair Burke also read a letter received September 191h from residents along Cedar Oak, a private lane, stating they had not been contacted nor involved in the Church's discussions with area residents. The public hearing was again recessed. 2.Consideration and possible action regarding the request for Amending Specific Use Permit -Church for Mary Queen Catholic Church located at 606 Cedarwood Drive, a 14.188 acre tract of land out of Lots 1 and 15, Block 3, Friendswood Subdivision, Galveston County, Texas. Motion: Second: Vote for: Clark -to continue to table the item McVeigh Unanimous Motion to table Carried - 1 - 09/20/01 P&Z Commissioner Bertrand would like staff to send a letter to the applicant advising them that the item can only be tabled for one more meeting before action must be taken. At this time the order of the published agenda was modified to allow the City Attorney, who had not yet arrived, to be present during the consideration and discussion on the three amendments to the zoning ordinance regarding the Permitted Use Table, Landscaping an Commercial Site Plans. 3.Communications from the Public. (Published as item 6) None. 4.Consideration and possible action regarding the preliminary plat of Coward Creek Crossing located at Baker Road and FM 2351. (Published as item 7) Motion: Second: Vote for: Aalund -to approve with conditions Clark Unanimous Motion Carried Mr. Randy Liska, representing the developer, addressed the Commission. The CCDD has not yet met to approve the preliminary drainage plan although a mitigation plan is in place for those lots located in the floodplain. Torn Offenburger, the owner/developer, stated that the majority of the plat lies in the City of Friendswood. GPS equipment and monuments were used to define the county line. The floodplain line on the plat was scaled from the FEJ\IIA map and then modified per FEJ\IIA requirements, along the watershed by actual contours on the ground. The plat has been marked with a 50 building line at the rear of those lots which abut the pipeline easement. This building lines corresponds with the City's pipeline ordinance requirements while still allowing a home to be built on these lots. 5.Consideration and possible action regarding the following (Published as item 8) : Consent Agenda: A.approval 09-05-0 l special meeting minutes. B.approval 09-06-01 regular meeting minutes. Motion: Second: Vote for: Clark -to approve McVeigh Unanimous Motion Carried 6.Discussion and possible action regarding amending the zoning ordinance with regards to the time limit of a Specific Use Permit for non-profit public institutional uses and phased developments. (P ublished as item 9) -2 - 09/20/01 P&Z - Motion: Second: Motion: Second: Vote for: Clark -to recommend amending the zoning ordinance with regards to the time limits for Specific Use Permits for non-profit public institutional uses and phased developments McVeigh Bertrand -to table discussion until staff can confer with City Attorney Clark Unanimous Motion Tabled The City Planner stated the need to revise the time limitations was based in part upon a situation where a local chu rch had plans to develop a new church complex which would require a Specific Use Permit. The development would occur in phases and could take up to twenty years to complete and they do not want to amend their SUP each time a new phase is built. Phased development has occurred in many other churches and schools in our City. Staffs suggestion was to amend the zoning ordinance and not have a time limit for a non-profit's phased development but that commercial concerns still have to comply to the two year limitation. The Commission stated concerns with regards to how new phases would conform to current ordinances which may have changed since the SUP's approval. It was also brought up that t4e approved site plan may change over a long period of time. Staff suggested that the ordinance be worded to allow the Commission the opportunity to approve each phase of the site plan with out going through a formal SUP amendment process. This would require a detailed 'master site plan' as part of the original SUP. Commissioner Bertrand alternately suggested setting a finite time limit of say 10 years for an SUP with the opportunity to extend that period once for the same length of time. He also stated that any extension or removal of the time limitation should extend to both non-profit and co�mercial developers. Particularly in the case of a mixed use development. Chairman Burke suggested that the limit of only one two year extension be removed from the current ordinance. This would allow the permit holder to apply for an unlimited number of two year extensions. Commissioner Mc Veigh stated she was against letting a non-profit have a SUP for a large tract when they were not going to develop it for a long period of time. She felt this would not help the economic development of the City. Staff was directed to look at what other municipalities have done regarding SUP time limits and to confer with the City Attorney on the issue. 7.Discussion lead by City Planner regarding meeting and agenda procedures. - 3 - 09/20/01 P&Z The City Planner noted that the Commission sometimes drifted from the published agenda during discussion. He asked that if any of the Commissioners had a topic for discussion or action, that they ask staff to place that topic on the agenda for the next regular meeting. 8.Consideration and possible action regarding amending Zoning Ordinance 84-15, as amended, Permitted Use Table. (published as Item ). Motion: Second: Vote for: Clark-to recommend approval Bertrand Unanimous Motion Carried Several Commissioners commented that this was a good idea and it would streamline business development. The City Attorney arrived at this time. 9.Consideration and possible action regarding amending Zoning Ordinance 84-15, as amended, Commercial Site Plans. Motion: Second: Vote for: Vote against: Bertrand -to recommend approval McVeigh Aalund, Burke, Bertrand, Clark, Mc Veigh, Samson Frankovich Motion Carried Several Commissioners stated that the current site plan approval process was fine. Many also stated that the City Council did not provide a clear directive regarding the proposed changes to approval process based on Council's comments at the Public Hearing. Chai1man Burke reminded the Commission that they had already recommended the change to the approval process and that the.proposed ordinance was the result of the Commission's recommendation. He also stated that although a 'sunset' clause was not part of the ordinance, staff should look at how the new process was working after a year. Commissioner Bertrand also asked staff to regularly advise the Commission regarding what site plans were in the review process. Commissioner Frankovich re-iterated his position that public input was important in the review process and that the proposed amendment only allowed them one oppo1tunity to comment. 10.Consideration and possible action regarding amending Zoning Ordinance 84-15, as amended, Landscape requirements. - 4 - 09/20/01 P&Z 1 I Motion: Second: Vote for: 11.Adjournment. Clark-to recommend approval Bertrand Unanimous Motion Carried With no further comment, a motion was made and the meeting adjourned at 9: 10 PM. ), K /_,J� •.IDJ � Diana Steelquist -_ Community Development Coordinator -5 - 09/20/01 P&Z