The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutP&Z Minutes 2001-09-06 RegularMinutes of a Regular Meeting of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission September 6, 2001 A regular meeting of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission was held Thursday, September 6, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the city hall council chambers located at 910 S. Fdendswood Drive, Friendswood, Texas. The following members were present: Neils Aalund Tom Burke Bob Berh·and 7: 10 p.m. Mark Clark Frank Frankovich 7:03 p.m. Tom Samson Zekie Mc Veigh Mike Dominguez-City Planner Diana Steelquist -CD Coordinator Mike Hodge -CD Director Kim Mickelson -City Attorney With a quorum present, Chair Burke called the meeting to order to consider the following: 1.Continuation of the Public Heming from August 6, 2001 to receive public input, eit her oral or written, regarding the following: A.Request for Amending Specific Use Permit -Church for Mary Queen Catholic Church located at 606 Cedmwood Drive, a 14.188 acre tract of land out of Lots 1 and 15, Block 3, Fdendswood Subdivision, Galveston County, Texas. Chairman Burke noted that numerous letters had been received from both suppmters and those opposed to the SUP amen dment. A letter dated September 5, 2001 was also sent by the Church which Chairman Burke read. It stated that a meeting had been held between the Church and some of the affected homeowners and that an agreement had been reached regarding the access concerns. The letter requested that action be tabled until September 20th so that the agreement could be documented and the site plan revised. Chairman Burke therefore recessed the public hearing until the next regular meeting. 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: Burke -to table the item McVeigh Unanimous 3.Communications from the public. None. -1 - 09/06/01 P &Z Motion to table Carried 4.Consideration and possible action regarding the following: Consent Agenda: A.approval 08-02-01 regular meeting minutes. B.approval 08-06-01 special meeting minutes. C.approval of the final plat of the Lakes of Falcon Ridge located off FM 518. D.approval of the final plat of the Wrightland Subdivision located off Crawford Rd. E.approval of the final plat of the Casa de Grace Subdivision located off Briar Creek Dr. F.approval of the final plat of Timber Creek Village located in the Forest of Friendswood. Motion: Second: Vote for: Clark-to approve the consent agenda Aalund Unanimous Motion Carried 5.Discussion regarding the conceptual plans for the 518-528 Subdivision (Walgreen's) located at the intersection of FM 518 and FM 528. Ms. Lynn Dore with Windrose Surveyors, addressed the Commission regarding the proposed plat. Ms. Dore presented a revised plat based on comments received from staff and the developer. An additional reserve and access easement was added. Chaitman Burke recommended that the project engineer contact the Clear Creek Drainage District regarding questions on the detention pond. The Commission expressed some concerns regarding access from FM 528. A suggestion was made to add a median to the drive way. It was also suggested to allow shared parking between individual reserves to increase overall green space in the development. A plat note will need to be added about shared driveway access. Mike Bradford, architect for the Walgreen's, will look into parking space options. 6.Discussion and possible action regarding amending the zoning ordinance with regards to the height of monument signs in Entry Overlay District and the Downtown Overlay District. Motion: Second: Vote for: Amended Motion: Aalund -to recommend amending the zoning ordin ance with regards to the height of monument signs in the Entry Overlay Dishict and the Downtown Overlay District. Samson Unanimous Motion Carried Aalund - to recommend amending the zoning ordinance with regards to allowing a maximum height of seven (7) feet for monument signs in the Entry Overlay District and the Downtown -2 - 09/06/01 P &Z I� 1:/. I I : ( l Second: Vote against: Vote for: Overlay District and to re-define the definition a monument sign to allow a concealed pole base. Samson Bertrand Aalund, Clark, Burke, Frankovich, Samson, McVeigh Motion Carried The Community Development Director began the discussion by giving a brief history of the current sign ordinance stating that the last revision had taken out previous monu ment sign height limits. The building official has noticed that the ordinance as currently written is being interpreted to allow monument signs of heights up to 15 feet. This is resulting in larger than anticipated monument signs in the EOD and DOD. The building official has suggested that monument signs be restiicted to a maximum height of seven (7) feet based on the maximum square footage allowed. Currently, the definition of a monument sign does not allow for poles in any fmm or fashion to be a part of a monument sign. Staff suggests that the definition be revised to state the outward appearance confo1m to the look of a monument sign but that the concealed structure allow for a pole base. This gives the developer more economical latitude in building a monument sign. The Commission asked what the height of signs were before the revision to the sign ordinance. Staff stated monuments signs were previously constr ucted to a five foot maximum height. Commissioner Bertrand would prefer that a five foot standard be enforced. Concern was expressed about a possible safety hazard to pedestrians being obscured by taller signs. Commissioner Bertrand also noted that larger signs would not encourage people to walk down the sidewalks. 7.Discussion and possible action regarding amending the zoning ordinance with regards to set backs for accessmy structures including but not limited to un-attached garages, storage buildings, work shops, barns, pool houses and un-attached mechanical/equipment rooms. Motion: Second: Motion: Second: Vote for: Amended Motion: Second: Clark -to recommend am�nding the zoning ordinance with regards to regards to set backs for accessory structures Samson Motion withdrawn Bertrand -to recommend amending the zoning ordinance by deleting the Garage Apartment and Accesso1y Residential Uses from the Pe1mitted Use Table Clark Unanimous Motion Carried Bertrand -to recommend amending the zoning ordinance by deleting the words "single story" from Section 7, Q., 3., a. Samson -3 - 09/06/01 P &Z Vote against: Frankovich Vote for: Aalund, Burke, Bertrand, Clark, Mc Veigh and Samson Amended Motion: Second: Vote for: Motion Canied Be1irand -to recommend amending the zoning ordin ance by co1recting the language with regards to the location of an accessoty shucture behind the main strncture in the rear yard to take into account for deep lots. Aalund Unanimous Motion Carried The Director stated that the issue regards the change of use in an accessmy strncture over time which based on the interpretation of the current zoning ordinance may require the new use to have a greater set back. Currently, the set backs for an un attached garage are 10 feet from the rear of the property, 5 feet from the main strncture and 5 feet from the side of the lot. Heights for accessory strnctures are also restricted to 20 ft. Some homeowners, may want to change the use of their garage to a living quarters by adding a second floor inside the 20 ft. strncture. As the ordinance is written now, that is not allowed. Only single stmy unattached accessory buildings are allowed and garage apartments are not permitted at all. The staff interprets habitable living space as falling under the same set back requirements as the main structure: 25 feet from the rear of the property and 10 feet from the side lot lines. The City Attorney will prepare a memo to the Building Official regarding what has been defined in case law as customarily incidental uses for accesso1y buildings. Mother-in-law quarters and garage apartments have been upheld as accessory building uses. Jeff Payson, recommended that the location of an accessory structure in the required rear yard be changed to locate the accesso1y strncture 50 feet from the street R.O.W., 20 or 25 feet from the front building line or alternatively, a specified distance from the rearmost point of the main shucture. As currently written and interpret ed, deep lots require the accessmy strncture to be located 25 feet from the rear lot set back. 8.Adjournment. A motion was made and the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Diana S teelqmst Community Development Coordinator -4 - 09/06/01 P&Z