Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 1991-02-21 Regular1 [ lJ REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 1991 7:00 P.M. A REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIENDSWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WAS HELD ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1991, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: BAKER -CHAIRMAN RODGERS FRANKOVICH THOMPSON -CITY ENGINEER KONCABA HENRY -DEVELOPMENT COORDINATORCOLBURN FINGER WITH A QUORUM PRESENT, McHUGH AND WASSON ABSENT, CHAIRMAN BAKER CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AND ASKED FOR COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. PENNY BURKE ASKED TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PARKS BOARD. SHE SAID THAT THE BOARD DID NOT WISH TO RECEIVE LAND THAT WAS UNDESIRABLE OR SUITABLE FOR A PARK AND SUGGESTED AN IMPACT FEE OF $350 WHICH WOULD BE PAID AT THE TIME THAT BUILDING PERMITS WERE PULLED. ENGINEER THOMPSON QUESTIONED THE LEGALITY OF IMPACT FEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARKS AND BURKE SAID THERE HAD BEEN CASES THAT HAD GONE TO THE SUPREME COURT. SHE STATED THERE WOULD BE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE MET, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO ESTABLISH A REGIONAL PARK AND THE MONEY WOULD HAVE TO BE SPENT IN THE IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE REGIONAL PARK. CHAIRMAN BAKER STATED THAT A PERSON WHO WAS BUILDING A HOME OUTSIDE OF A SUBDIVISION WOULD ALSO HAVE TO PAY THE FEE FOR PARKS. THIS WOULD HELP THE CITY BUILD OTHER PARKS OR TO IMPROVE THE EXISTING PARKS. WITH NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE CONSIDERED: 1.REVIEW SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING FILING DEEDRESTRICTIONS. CHAIRMAN BAKER EXPLAINED THE CURRENT PROCESS FOR FILING DEED RESTRICTIONS AT THE SAME TIME THE PLAT WAS FILED. HE ADDED THAT A DEVELOPER COULD CHANGE OR ELIMINATE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THE DAY AFTER THEY WERE FILED. HE ALSO ADDED THAT THE CITY COULD NOT ENFORCE DEED RESTRICTIONS. ENGINEER THOMPSON SAID THAT CITY SECRETARY ARCHER SUGGESTED AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE WHEREBY A DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN ORDER TO REVISE THEIR RESTRICTIONS. COMMISSIONER FINGER QUESTIONED IF PLANNING AND ZONING HAD ANY APPROVAL AUTHORITY REGARDING DEED RESTRICTIONS AND RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE CONSULTED REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY GOVERNMENT HAS ANY CONTROL OVER DEED RESTRICTIONS. COMMISSIONER RODGERS QUESTIONED IF THE FILING OF DEED RESTRICTIONS WOULD PUT THE CITY AT RISK. DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR HENRY SAID THAT ARCHER HAD CONFERRED WITH ATTORNEY OLSON WHO INDICATED THAT THE CITY WAS AT RISK. CHAIRMAN BAKER ASKED THOMPSON TO SPEAK WITH JOHN OLSON REGARDING THE MATTER, [ I l u P&Z 2/21/91 page 2 2.REVIEW SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR POSSIBLE UPDATE AND REVISION. THERE WAS DISCUSSION REGARDING THE REVISION AND PRINTING OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. CHAIRMAN BAKER PRESENTED AN ORDINANCE PREPARED BY A COMPANY NAMED MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION. HE STATED THAT THE COMPANY CHARGED $13.75 PER PAGE FOR PREPARATION AND A FLAT FEE FOR ADDITIONAL COPIES. ENGINEER THOMPSON SAID THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THEN A SEPARATE DOCUMENT WITH INSTRUCTIONS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND DESIGN CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENT WHICH CAN BE USED FOR UTILITY PROJECTS AS WELL AS NEW SUBDIVISIONS. INCORPORATED WITHIN THE DOCUMENT COULD BE DRAWINGS, DETAIL DESIGN, ETC. THOMPSON SAID THAT THERE HAS BEEN CONTROVERSY OVER THE DEFINITION OF A SUBDIVISION. HE SAID THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE CLARIFICATION OF APARTMENTS AND RATHER OR NOT THEY CONSTITUTE A SUBDIVISION. THE PIPE LINE SET BACK ORDINANCE, THE RUN OFF CONTROL ORDINANCE (DETENTION REQUIREMENTS), AND PRIVATE STREETS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. COMMISSIONER FINGER SAID THAT A DEVELOPER WOULD BE INTERESTED IN REGULATIONS CONCERNING LAND USE AND REGULATIONS AS THEY APPLY TO CONSTRUCTION. BAKER REFERRED TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE STATING THAT IT TOO, SHOULD BE REVISED. FOR EXAMPLE, BAKER SAID HE FELT ALL ITEMS REFERRING TO CSC (COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICT) SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN THAT SECTION, CURRENTLY, PARKING IS ADDRESSED IN ONE SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE, SET BACK REQUIREMENTS IN ANOTHER, LANDSCAPING IN A DIFFERENT SECTION WITH PERMITTED USES IN STILL ANOTHER SECTION. THOMPSON RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMMISSION TAKE THEIR COPIES OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MARK UP THE AREAS OF THEIR CONCERN. RODGERS STATED THAT THOMPSON SHOULD ALSO MAKE COMMENTS BASED UPON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE COMMISSION AGREED TO REVIEW THE TWO ORDINANCES AS WELL AS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOOKLET. 3.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE PROPOSEDLAND DEVELOPMENT BOOKLET. THE COMMISSION AGREED TO REVIEW THE REVISED LAND DEVELOPMENT BOOKLET. COORDINATOR HENRY HAD ADDED THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. 4.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (M.W.) DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF COMMISSIONER WASSON, THIS ITEM WAS PASSED OVER UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. 5.MINUTES FOR APPROVAL -FEBRUARY 17, 1991 APPROVED AS READ. f l [ u P&Z 2/21/91 page3 � �JI-_ ·L�CLAUDIA L. B*iMA=sECRETARY