Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 2001-04-19 Regularr-l 1. lI u Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission April 19, 2001 A regular meeting of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission was held Thursday, April 19, 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: Tom Burke Bob Bertrand Zekie Mc Veigh Neils Aalund Tom Samson Mark Clark Mike Dominguez -City Planner Mike Hodge -CD Director Diana Steelquist -CD Coordinator Kim Mickelson -City Attorney Mel Measeles -Council Liaison Frank Frankovich 7:05 P.M. With a quorum present, Chair Burke called the meeting to order to consider the following: 1.Communications from the public. There were no communications from the public. Due to the possibility of lengthy discussions on other agenda items. The agenda order was modified to move up the consent agenda items and the discussion on the thoroughfare plan for Greenbriar. Commissioner Frankovich arrived at this time. 5.Consideration and possible action regarding the following: Consent Agenda: A.approval 4-2-01 special meeting minutes. B.approval 4-5-01 regular meeting minutes. C.approval 4-9-01 special meeting minutes. D.approval of final plat of H.E.B. Friendswood located on FM 528 at Sunset. Motion: Samson -to approve Second: McVeigh Vote for: Unanimous Motion Carried 4.Consideration and possible action regarding the major thoroughfare plan for Greenbriar. Motion: Clark -to recommend to City Council a revision to the Major Thoroughfare plan regarding the extension of Greenbriar. Second: Samson Vote: None taken Motion Tabled - l - 04/19/01 P&Z Amended Motion: Bertrand -to table discussion until more information could be gathered from staff. Second: Frankovich Vote for: Unanimous Motion Carried Mr. Peter Gorman addressed the commission regarding his request to modify the major thoroughfare plan by not having Greenbriar extend to FM 528. Mr. Gorman would like to develop a tract of land for Garden Homes in the area of the planned road extension. He also expressed safety concerns which would result from the placement of an additional traffic light on FM 528. Similar concerns were expressed in memos from Captain Luke Loeser and the CDD staff. Commissioner Frankovich felt an additional light would not be a hazard but rather beneficial in slowing traffic along FM 528. He also suggested that the cmTent alignment plan for Greenbriar could be modified to have the intersection ali gn with Layfair Place in the Fox Meadows Subdivision. Based on his DRC meeting, Mr. Gorman did not think re-aligning the road way would be feasible as it would then be in the floodway along Chigger Creek. Other questions that were raised included what the Texas Department of Transportation's standards would be for changing the speed limits and for installing traffic signalization in this area and if any h·affic count data was available. A motion was made to table fmther discussion until more information could be obtained from staff on the issues raised. 2.Discussion and possible action regarding amending the zoning ordinance with regards to tree preservation. Motion: Second: Vote: Aalund -to recommend to City Council a revision to the zoning ordinance regarding tree preservation Be1trand Unanimous Motion Carried This item will be work shopped by City Council on May 14th. The ordinance revisions were prepared by a sub-committee in an effort to address the loss of trees which are located in areas outside the cmTent tree survey requirements. Cun-ently, tree surveys are required for the first 20 feet of depth along R.O.W.'s and streets frontages. The purpose would be to preserve the value of trees in each property developed, the value of trees to the city and the value to the people of the city. It would also provide a means were trees could be moved or replaced off site along with establishing a fund to replace trees if they could not be saved during the site devel opment process. Per the City Attorney, the proposed penalties for illegally destroying or removing trees could not be enforced. Fees for penalties are already established in the zoning ordinance. It was recommended that many of the procedures on how trees will be protected during site development should be included in the Design Criteria Manual. Other suggestions included a tree registry, an Arbor Plan for the city, a coalition with su1Tounding municipalities for a c_omprehensive Arbor Plan, grants for funding of enforcement, combining tree preservation with the EOD and DOD, future involvement from the Community Appearance Board and Downtown Beautification Committee. Ms. Doris Heard offered comments regarding the city's cu1Tent qualified tree list which addresses the types of trees which would be prefe1Ted in the city. It was suggested that this list be added to the Desi gn Criteria Manual rather than be a part of the Zoning Ordinance. - 2 -04/19/01 P &Z The City Attorney will review other municipalities' ordinances regarding tree preservation with regards on how to implement a tree fund and when the ZBOA might get involved with exceptions to the ordinance to allow for more "flexible zoning" particularly when the aesthetics of a development are involved. The City Planner will also be contacting other municipalities to dete1mine where they obtained grants to fund their urban forester or arbotist. He also noted that at least one city used 4b sales taxes to fund a forester. Concern was also expressed regarding enforcement where p1ivate property starts and ends patticularly right-of-ways in single family re sidential areas. The terms used regarding development will also need to be more defined so interpretation will be on a broad scale to initiate a tree survey early in the development process. In addition, the city attorney will investigate the use of any tree fund established thorough the ordinance revision for the maintenance of existing trees. Although, she did not believe that such a use would be defensible as tree maintenance on public areas is currently a city responsibility and maintenance of trees on private lots was not. 3.Discussion and possible action regarding amending the commercial site plan approval process. Chairman Burke asked the Council Liaison to discuss the reasons why council wants to change the commercial site plan approval process. Ivlr. Measeles stated that at the recent council retreat the topic came up during discussions on economic development. The consensus was that by having staff perform the review and approval, the process would be streamlined. Chairman Burke noted that multi-family residential developments were currently included in the commercial site plan approval process and wanted to know if these would still be reviewed by P&Z. Multi-family residential developments were not discussed at the retreat and it was assumed they would be excluded from staff approval of commercial site plans. The Chairman and Liaison were both interested in what all the commissioners thought about the proposed change to the site plan process and wanted to present those comments to City Council. Commissioner Bertrand stated that staff was now capable of performing site plan approval, however; he felt the change from P&Z to staff approval should be a graduated process wherein ce1tain types of site plans based on the zoning are initially given to the staff to approve. Other types could be added as the staff got more expetience. He was also concerned that the new approval process would not allow citizens to comment and view commercial site plans. He recommended that commercial site plans have a five day period in which the public would be allowed to view and comment upon new commercial development before staff approved a site plan. Notice of the site plan's viewing could be posted on the City's web site. Commissioner Frankovich did not think the process should be changed. His opinion was that the more eyes that looked at a site plan, the better compliance with the city ordinances would be obtained. He is aware that a developer has a limited time frame. His suggestion was to sho1ten_ the time frame for the approval process. The P&Z review of site plans has been beneficial in the past by detecting areas where the ordinances were not addressed. Citizens have also come to P&Z with valid comments on commercial site plans and they need to have a fmum to continue to do so. Staff estimates four to six weeks time would be saved if the site plan approval was done on a staff level. Currently, staff reviews commercial site plans three times, for the - 3 - 04/19/01 P&Z preliminary approval, the final approval and again when the permitting process begins. The new process would have one submittal for site plan and construction permitting. Plans would be reviewed, comments would be addressed and a permit could be issued. Commissioner Mc Veigh noted that the larger commercial developers never had problems with their developments, were always prepared and went through the process quickly. It was other smaller developers who were not prepared, were not familiar with the ordinances and who had multiple comments on their site plans who took longer to go through the process. If the change to the site plan process was complaint driven, as the Council Liaison felt it was, how would changing the process assist these types of developers? Commissioner Clark felt that the citizens still needed an opportunity to speak to commercial developers in a public fornm so that any concerns they might have could be addressed directly. He also felt the public needed an advocate in the approval of commercial site plans and that P&Z served that role. Final site plans still come to P&Z with problems and the commission has been able to make developers comply where staff could not or were staff did not see the problem. The comment that he has heard from developers was that the problem with commercial development was in the construction plan review and not site plan approval. Additionally, by allowing the P&Z commission the oppo1tunity to review and approve site plans, it provides ideas for additional ordinances to improve the aesthetics of the city. Landscape ordinances, tree preservation, lighting, and EOD ordinances evolved from the review of commercial site plans. The Commissioners serve as planners as well as zoning commissioners and should continue to review commercial site plans to build the city in the direction of the views of its citizens. Commissioner Aalund is in favor of expediting the approval process, however; the Commissioners bring additional eyes and ears to the process. Additionally the discussions which take place with the developer and citizens at the meetings are beneficial to all. Each applicant is treated fairly during the process. Commissioner Samson noted that he has spent a lot of time on a committee to revise the Permitted Use Table. The revisions are aimed at speeding up and aiding the development process in Friendswood by reducing the types of specific use permits required, and expanding other permitted uses. He sees the P&Z commission not as a barrier to development but as a filter. It is a fornm for public discussion which should remain intact. He wants the development process to be thorough and fair rather than speedy. Commission Bertrand clarified the commercial site plan process with staff. The new concept would be to cut down the number of reviews done by staff. Commissioner Frankovich suggested that the construction plan review begin with site plan approval in order to speed up the permitting process. Chairman Burke noted that the preliminary approval process was implemented to· guide developers in creating site plans which met city ordinances. That process has been taken over by the Development Review Committee meeting. The Commission cmTently relies on staff's recommendation memos to be accurate although at times the commission will add or delete items, and trnsts staff to see that the comments are addressed on the - 4 -04/19/01 P&Z l I \ final submittal. Therefore, since staff is performing the preliminaiy approval via DRC and the review of the final site plan submittal, why not take P&Z prelimina1y site plan approval out of the process. Because of the issues discussed earlier, particularly the need for public input, make final approval of commercial site plans a P &Z consent agenda item. The commission still needs to be involved in planning actions and the approval of commercial site plans is that means. The staff saw no legal or procedural reasons why Chairman Burke's suggestion could not be implemented. As no ordinance has been drafted, the Chai1man will forward the commissions' comments to City Council for their review. 6.Adjournment. A motion was made, seconded and approved to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 P .M. Diana SteelquisL Community Development Coordinator -5 - 04/19/01 P&Z