Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 2001-06-07 Speciall Minutes of a Special Session and Regular Meeting of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission June 7, 2001 A specia l session and regular meeting of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission was held Thursday June 7, 2001 beginning at 6:00 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 Frank Frankovich Zekie Mc Veigh Tom Samson Niels Aalund Mike Dominguez -City Planner Mike Hodge, Community Development Director Linda Collins -Senior Administrative Secretary With a quorum present, Mark Clark absent, Chair Burke called the meeting to order to consider the following: 6:00 P.M. SPECIAL SESSION Called to order: 6:00 PM 1.Discussion of the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance. Chailman Burke began with an overview of the background work done thus far. He also summarized his conversations with Tony Benefield and Jeff Pason. Both of these citi zens were in favor of the ordinance proposals. Mike Hodge stated that addition al personnel, in the way of an arborist either full or part time, would be required for enforcement of the Ordinance. He is also open to the option of collaborating with other Cities to share an arborist. Chair Burke stated City Council's limi tation on the survey's included minimum size and type of tree. There are three options as seen by City Council. 1. Replace or pay for trees removed by the caliper inch. 2. Inch for inch replacement. 3. Trees considered to be large, prize, registered or historical should have criteria in place to deal with these. Councilman Erickson voiced concern that homeowners should be able to do what they want on their own property; however, he understands the need for the Ordinance. He liked the cost sharing with neighboring Cities, stating League City is agreeable to share an arborist. He was in favor of the tree for tree replacement as long as it is reasonable. He does have concern for compensation for large trees. Concern about Ordinance clarity and the need for the Clear Creek Drainage District and the Friendswood Fire Dept. to be involved in the planning and input of the Ordinance were voiced. It was agreed this would help the end result to have the look of a more attractive development much like a "Planned Community". 2.Discussion of the Commercial Site Plan Approval Process - l - 06/07/01 P &Z Mike Dominguez gave an overview of the possible options for revising the process. Option A: Approval of Preliminary and Final Site Plans, the cun-ent process. Scenario 1) The preliminary site plan is submitted no later then 5:00 p.m. the Monday of the week before the P &Z meeting for which the site is on the agenda. P&Z Commission approves the site plan. The final site plan is then submitted by 5:00 p.m. of the Monday of the week before the P&Z me eting for which the site is on the agenda. The process ends in approx. four weeks. Scenario 2) The preliminary site plan is submitted no later then 5:00 p.m. the Monday of the week before the P&Z meeting for which the site is on the agenda. P&Z Commission approves the site plan with conditions. Conditions cannot be completed and implemented in time for submittal for the next meeting, ad ding two to three weeks minimum to the process. Once completed the final site plan is then submitted by 5:00 p.m. of the Monday of the week before the P&Z meeting for which the site is on the agenda. The process ends in approx. four to six weeks. Options B 1: P &Z Commission Approval of Preliminary Site Plans. Scenario 1) The preliminary site plan is submitted no later then 5:00 p.m. the Monday of the week before the P&Z meeting for which the site is on the agenda. P &Z Commi ssion approves the site plan. The process ends in approx. two weeks. Scenario 2) The preliminary site plan is submitted no later then 5:00 p.m. the Monday of the week before the P &Z meeting for which the site is on the agenda. P&Z Commission approves the site plan with conditions. The final site plan is checked for accuracy by staff The process ends in approx. two to four weeks depending on if conditions are addressed. Option B2: P&Z Commission Approval of Final Site Plans. Scenario 1) The final site plan is submitted no later then 5:00 p.m. the Monday of the week before the P &Z meeting for which the site is on the agenda. P &Z Commission approves the site plan. The process ends in approx. two weeks. Scenario 2) The final site plan is submitted no later then 5:00 p.m. the Monday of the week before the P&Z meeting for which the site is on the agenda. P&Z Commission approves the site plan with conditions. The final site plan is checked for accuracy by staff. The process ends in approx. two to four weeks depen ding on if conditions are a<l<lressed. Option C: Staff Approves both Prelimina1y and Final Site Plans. Scenario 1) The preliminary site plan is submitted no later then 5:00 p.m. the Monday. Staff approves the site plan with no conditions. The final site plan is submitted. The process ends in approx. two weeks. Scenario 2) The preliminary site plan is submitted no later then 5:00 p.m. the Monday. Staff the site plan with conditions. The site plan is checked for accuracy by staff. The final site plan is submitted. The process ends in approx. two to three weeks depending on if conditions are addressed. As time ended for the special session, it was decided that discussion on this topic would be continued in the regular meeting. 7:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION -2- 06/07/01 P &Z r l Call to order: 7:05 PM 1.Communications from the public. There were no communications from the public. 2.Consideration and possible action regarding a request for a zone classification change for a total of 1.0356 acre tract out of an 11.62 acre h·act, in the Mary Sloan Survey, Abstract 184, Chevron Handi-plus (corner of FM 528 and Country Club Drive) Galveston County, Texas, from: Multi­ family Residential Dwelling District -Medium (MFR-M), to: Neighborhood Commercial (NC). Chair Burke filed a Conflict of Interest letter and left the dais and Council Chambers at this time. Mr. Bertrand conducted this portion of the meeting. Motion: Made by Second: Vote: For: Against: Abstained: Motion: To recommend approval Niels Aalund Zekie Mc Veigh Zekie Mc Veigh, Frank Frankovich Tom Samson, Niels Aalund, Bob Bertrand Tom Burke Failed. 3.Consideration and possible action regarding the preliminary commercial site plan for the Children's Lighthouse located on Lot 1, Lighthouse Addition Chairman Burke returned at this time and resumed his position on the dais. Motion: Made by: Second: Vote: For: Motion: To recommend approval of the prelimin ary site plan with contingencies Niels Aalund Tom Samson Unanimous Passed Ms. Janice Lowe, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. Mike Dominguez confirmed the usage and parking group for a day care. Ms. Lowe answered Chair Burke's question stating the Civil Engineer had mailed the parking plan showing the 50 additional required parking spaces, but had been unable to locate it due to the storm. Concern was raised about the drive way and drainage of the property. Ms. Lowe stated that the owner and the adjacent landowner have an agreement to work together on the drainage easement. The Commission questioned what zones were adjacent and if fencing was required. Zoning is CSC on the side, and SFR to the rear. Chair Burke asked if the property was exempt from the privacy 8' opaque fence in the rear due to the drainage facility. Staff indicated that a fence was required. Ms. Lowe was concerned on the fence issue, stating the State and the City each have requirements with regard to type, height and need. Chair Burke - 3 - 06/07/01 P &Z stated the Ordinance is unclear in this area and asked that Mike Dominguez to research this issue for clarification at the next meeting. 4.Consideration and possible action regarding the preliminary plat of Autumn Creek Section Eight located off West Bay Area Blvd. Motion: Made by: Second: Vote: For: To re-approve the preliminary plat Bob Bertrand Niels Aalund Unanimous Motion: Passed Preliminary plat approval has expired and the applicant is requesting re-approval of the preliminary plat. Mike Dominguez verified this is a one-time extension of the preliminary plat. The developers are working on several sections at a one time and did not realize plat approval had expired. 5.Discussion and possible action to amend the Major Thoroughfare Plan Motion: Made by: Second: Vote: For: To approve staff recommendation that the amendment to the major thoroughfare plan would be to continue Greenbtiar by way of Briar Creek. Frank Frankovich Niels Aalund Motion: Unanimous Passed The main purpose of the Major Thoroughfare Plan is to provide a map to indicate thoroughfares, which need to be preserved, and to indicate the street improvements can be encouraged through development. If Greenbriar terminates at Briar Creek and is no longer a thoroughfare, then we have an approximate 2000' length of road that is no longer needed. The Commission can either terminate Greenbriar at Wilderness Trails turning this into another thoroughfare, or it can designate Briar Creek as the continuation of the thoroughfare so it will tie into FM528 and Falcon Ridge. Chair Burke stated that the Commission made a motion to approve the deletion, and Council needs to rule on that. However, Council has asked us to take this a step further. Staff's recommendation to the Commission was to make Briar Creek a continuation of Greenbriar. The reason being, this is the way it currently exists, and is working well. There is probably not going to be any other development to be affected by this change with the exception of the land at the bend of Greenbriar. The current development uses Btiat Creek as a thoroughfare. 6.Consideration and possible action regarding the following: Consent Agenda: A.Approval 5-14-01 special meeting minutes. B.Approval 5-17-01 regular meeting minutes. - 4 - 06/07/01 P &Z 1 Motion: To approve the minutes Made by: Niels Aalund Second: Tom Samson Vote: For: Unanimous Motion: Passed C.Consideration and possible action regarding the final plat of the Fo1·est, Section Twelve. Motion: Made: Second: Vote: For: Motion: To approve the plat. Niels Aalund Tom Samson Unanimous Passed It was determined some lines on the final plat indicated the flood plan and would be removed from the mylars filed with the county. 7.Discussion and possible action regarding changes to the Tree Preservation Ordinance This item was tabled until a draft is available to work with. Chair Burke said there should not be a problem placing this on the next agenda. No action was taken. 8.Discussion and possible action regarding changes to the Commercial Site Plan App1·oval Process Chair Burke stated this item had also been discussed in the special session, however time ran out. Mike Dominguez provided and explained fiow charts to the Commission of the four possible options, giving time frames for each. Chair Burke asked Ms. Lowe to explain the process she followed for her submittals. She· stated they intentionally planned out the process to work with the system in place. And with the use of FedEx and a light workload on the part of other parties involved, meeting deadlines could be possible but in most cases highly unlikely. Chair Burke asked to what extent can and do people respond to comments in the short a time frame, whether they are staffs or the Commissions? Mike Hodge stated that less than half could probably tum it around in the time frame currently allotted between meeting deadlines. Mr. Frankovich expressed concern of the perception that P &Z comments cause difficulty. Mike Hodge stated, many times the Commission's comments are not a matter difficultly, but a matter of workload on the part of the consultant who is preparing the plans. He summarized the process an applicant would go through to resubmit plans. Chair Burke asked that consideration be given to the id ea of the P&Z Commission not meet as often as they do. Mike Hodge voiced concern that the idea would not have the kind of effect on the developer's schedule as hoped. - 5 - 06/07/01 P &Z At Chair Burke's invitation, Ms. Lowe stated that the piivate sector would not want P&Z to meet less. In fact they would probably like it to meet once a week to move the process along. However, she suggested that after comments are made for preliminary approval, there not be a timing deadline to meet the requirements for final approval. That all comments could be worked out with staff, based on their workday and the workload presented to them, verses meeting the agenda time line. Mike Hodge veiified the time line begins when the prelimin ary plat is submitted and rnns until P&Z approval. The timeline does not include review time for building plans, which can take anywhere from two to four weeks. He also confilmed the City offers the option for people to have their building plans reviewed prior to final approval and this service is requested frequently. However, they are not a high priority and are taken in turn with other plans already in the process. Chair Burke restated the City Council's position, that the P&Z Commission have preliminary without final approval. Chair Burke recom mended that action be taken on this issue and Council be notified of the action taken. Most of the Commissioners stated their concern for quality development not rapid development and that the public have an opportunity to be part of the process. Councilman Jerry Etickson stated the Council position, that a change be made to provide the most rapid approval process. He had heard several good points during the discussion to be considered which would keep the Commission involved in the approval process. He did not want to have just staff approval by default. Chair Burke stated that Economic Development is this issue. Council man Eiickson stated the City is the benefactor that, we are seen by developers as being more user fiiendly. Council Liaison, Mel Measles, commented on the definite need to keep the public involved, and that P&Z input does has value. Mr. Bertrand expressed concern that revising the Permitted Use Table may also limit P&Z's authority or input on commercial site plans and will open the flood gates. If P &Z is out of the approval process, he is not sure that they can be very effective in dealing with planning and zoning because they are then a layer or two removed. Mike Hodge recommended that P&Z have approval of the final site plan. Cuffently the site plan approval for an SUP is done in this fashion. With P&Z having final site plan approval it would allow CDD to be consistent with site plan approval whether it were with a SUP, or permitted use. Motion: To recommend Approve Option A, the cun-ent process, with the condition that after preliminary approval for the first meeting it automatically be placed the next agenda for final approval with conditions if necessaiy, and for staff to review those conditions before it is finally approved. Made by: Frank Frankovich - 6 - 06/07/01 P &Z Second: Vote: For: Against: Motion: Motion: Made by: Second: Vote: For: Against: Motion: Bob Bertrand Frank Frankovich Tom Burke, Zekie McVeigh, Bob Bertrand, Tom Samson, Niels Aalund Failed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council that although the Commission strongly feels that Option A, the current process, is the most appropriate way in which to conduct review of site plans in this City, its recognized the need to do all that we can to be a more friendly City to developers therefore we recommend Option B, looking at site plans one time. Bob Bertrand Zekie Mc Veigh Tom Burke, Zekie McVeigh, Bob Bertrand, Tom Samson, Niels Aalund Frank Frankovich Approved 9.Discussion and possible action regarding the changes to the Permitted Use Table Commission was given an overview of the PUT review process by staff. The item was tabled to give Commissioners more time to review the proposed PUT revisions. 10.Adjournment. Motion to adjourn at 10:00 p.m. c;Jtbile(]gg� '<la Collins Administrative Secretary - 7 - 06/07/01 P &Z