HomePrint
Email

Go To Search
City Council and Boards and CommissionsDepartments - City ConnectionsResidents - Resources and InformationHow Do I...? - How Can We Help?
Click to Home

 

View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

Planning & Zoning Commission

Regular Session Agenda

May 18, 2009 

6:00 PM

Council Chambers, 200 West Walker Street

I.           Call to order and Roll call of members

II.            Approval of Minutes        

   A.      May 4, 2009

III.               Public Hearings

   A.      Hold a public hearing and take action on BP09-01R (Wood?s Business Park), a request to reduce the required buffer yard along the eastern property line adjoining ?OS? (Open Space) zoning from 50 feet to 20 feet on approximately 1.1 acres zoned ?CG? (General Commercial), legally described as Tract 60 of the J. Dickinson Survey, Abstract No. 9, generally located north of West Main Street (Farm to Market Road 518) and west of Oak Creek Drive with the approximate address being 6 Cedar Gully Road.

 

IV.                Tabled and Subject to Recall

   A.      Consider and take action on a Final Plat ? Cypress Bay, Section 3, zoned ?RSF-5? (Single-family residential with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet), ?RSF-7 (Single-family residential with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet) and ?OS? (Open Space), generally located north of Marina Bay Drive (FM 2094) and west of Seminole Drive.

B.       Consider and take action on Z09-01 (South Hammock), a request to rezone approximately 2.8 acres from ?RSF-5? (Single-family residential with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet) to ?IL? (Limited Industrial), legally described as portions of Lot 27-1 and Lot 27-2 of League City Division C, generally located north of Austin Street and east of Texas Avenue, with the approximate address being 920 Texas Avenue. (PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ON 04/06/09)

C.       Consider and take action on SUP09-02 (South Hammock), a request for a Special Use Permit (SUP) on approximately 2.8 acres for a "mining and drilling" use [oil and gas] in the "IL" (Limited Industrial) zoning district, legally described as portions of Lot 27-1 and Lot 27-2 of League City Division C, generally located north of Austin Street and east of Texas Avenue, with the approximate address being 920 Texas Avenue. (PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ON 04/06/09)

 

V.                                    Other Business

   A.         Discuss potential policies and procedures for Planning and Zoning Commission meetings.

 

VI.                                  Adjournment

 

 

CERTIFICATE

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE NOTICE OF MEETING WAS POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD AT CITY HALL OF THE CITY OF LEAGUE CITY, TEXAS, BY THE 14TH DAY OF MAY 2009, BY 6 PM, AND WAS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 551, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT).  ITEMS POSTED IN THE OPEN SESSION PORTIONS OF THIS AGENDA MAY ALSO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED OR EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

 

 

 

 

_________________________________________

LaSHONDRA HOLMES, AICP

PLANNING MANAGER

 

          ******************************************************************

 

  1. Call to order and Roll call of members

 

Mr. Williams called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

 

Members present:                                                                  Members absent:

Marc Edelman                                                                         Christopher Hullman, Chair

Douglas Turner                                               

Melvin Bogus

Jack Owens

William Koonce

Wayne Lake

Wade Williams 

 

*Mr. Hullman was on vacation during the May 18th meeting.

 

City Representatives:

Tony Allender, Land Management Director

LaShondra Holmes, Planning Manager

Kim Buttrum, Senior Planner

Heidi Shannon, Planner

Rodney Glasper, Planner

Dausha Moore, Planner

Barbara Roberts, Acting City Attorney

 

Prior to the approval of minutes, Mr. Koonce interjected stating he researched the City?s charter in regards to the City Attorney.

 

Mr. Koonce cited Article 6 of the charter stating special counsel or assistance may be employed if deemed necessary by the City Council.

 

Mr. Koonce further stated he obtained City Attorney, Dick Gregg?s contract with the City.

 

Mr. Koonce added the City Attorney does not have the authority to appoint someone to replace his position.

 

Mr. Koonce further added that he has a problem with Ms. Roberts sitting in during the Commission?s meeting.

 

Mr. Koonce stated the Commission is capable to take action on an item without the presence of an attorney.

 

Mr. Koonce made a motion to recuse Ms. Roberts from the meeting stating Ms. Roberts did not have authority and was improperly appointed.

 

Mr. Bogus seconded the motion.

 

Ms. Roberts in response stated her presence is not improper.

 

Ms. Roberts further informed the Commission that she is one of the attorneys representing the City in the lawsuit Smith v. City of League City. The City Council wanted to protect the City?s interest in the lawsuit, therefore she was asked to appear to answer any of the Commission?s questions in regards to the lawsuit and the plat.

 

Mr. Koonce asked Ms. Roberts who employed her.

 

Ms. Roberts stated the City Council hired Chamberlain, Hrdicka, White, Williams & Martin to represent them in the lawsuit.

 

Mr. Koonce stated he was concerned that Ms. Roberts would provide information on other agenda items.

 

Ms. Roberts in response stated she has not provided any advice on other agenda items.

 

Mr. Koonce and Mr. Bogus withdrew their motions.

 

Mr. Bogus asked who was filming the meeting.

 

Mr. Edelman in response stated he employed a videographer.

 

LaShondra Holmes, Planning Manager stated the Commission should not discuss items that are not on the agenda.

 

Mr. Bogus stated he would like to know why Mr. Edelman was filming the meeting.

 

Tony Allender, Land Management Director stated the Commission should continue with the agenda items and may discuss the filming of the meeting during agenda item VA.

 

Mr. Bogus in response stated the meeting would have concluded and that he would like to go on record as objecting the videographer presence.

 

Mr. Owens made a motion to move Item VA to the first order of business.


Mr. Bogus seconded the motion.

 

The motion was adopted unanimously.

 

VII.          Other Business

 

A.     Discuss potential policies and procedures for Planning and Zoning Commission meetings.

 

Tony Allender, Land Management Director asked if staff should consider a list of policies and procedures that could be enacted in addition to the by-laws and that would also address the issues that may be of concern for the Commission.

 

Mr. Allender stated this agenda item is intended to be constructive criticism for staff.

 

Mr. Bogus asked Mr. Edelman for the reason he videotaped the meeting.

 

Mr. Edelman stated for his own personal accurate record of the meeting.

 

Mr. Edelman added that he received approval from staff prior to the meeting.

 

Mr. Bogus stated he wanted to be notified of the videotaping ahead of time.

 

Mr. Koonce stated he researched videotaping of meetings and found that any member of the public may record the Commission?s meetings because they are public meetings.

 

Ms. Holmes stated the Commissioner?s also asked to discuss conflict of interests.

 

Mr. Allender stated the Commission should indicate any conflict of interests they may have.

 

Mr. Bogus asked if staff would compile a list of policies and procedures.

 

Mr. Allender responded affirmatively.

 

 

    II.            Approval of Minutes

 

AMay 4, 2009

 

Mr. Bogus made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 4th meeting.  

 

Mr. Koonce seconded the motion.

 

Mr. Edelman asked that the minutes be changed to reflect that he asked that the protest signs be taken down because the item was not a public hearing.

 

Mr. Edelman further asked that the minutes be changed to reflect that he requested a motion to deny Cypress Bay, Section 3.

 

Mr. Edelman added that he would like to include his video as a supplement to the minutes.

 

Ms. Holmes stated she would need to research to determine if Mr. Edelman?s video may be used as a supplement because it was also videotaped by the City.

 

Mr. Edelman asked if the City?s videotape may be used instead.

 

Ms. Holmes stated she would ask the City Administrator if either videotape may be used as a supplement to the minutes.

 

The motion was adopted unanimously.

 

III.       Public Hearings

 

                 B.            Hold a public hearing and take action on BP09-01R (Wood?s Business Park), a request to reduce the required buffer yard along the eastern property line adjoining OS (Open Space) zoning from 50 feet to 20 feet on approximately 1.1 acres zoned CG (General Commercial), legally described as Tract 60 of the J. Dickinson Survey, Abstract No. 9, generally located north of West Main Street (Farm to Market Road 518) and west of Oak Creek Drive with the approximate address being 6 Cedar Gully Road.

 

Rodney Glasper, Planner came forward to restate the staff report for this item.

 

Mr. Glasper informed the Commission of the history of this item.

 

Mr. Glasper stated that on April 6, 2009, the applicant requested a buffer yard variance along the northern and eastern property lines.

 

Mr. Glasper stated the neighboring residents from the Oak Creek Subdivision strongly opposed the buffer yard variance for concerns of (1) privacy due to the allowable building height of 125 feet in the ?CG? district; (2) noise and lighting impacts; (3) potential drainage issues; and (4) the potential for lowering of property values in the area. 

 

Mr. Glasper added the Planning and Zoning Commission denied the applicant?s request by a vote of 7-0-0. 

 

Mr. Glasper stated that the applicant now requests a buffer yard variance to only the east property line.

 

Mr. Glasper informed the Commission of the following potential conditions:

 

  1. The variance is restricted to an office/warehouse use.
  2. Deliveries shall occur between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm.

3.      The height of the structure(s) shall not exceed 30 feet.

 

Mr. Edelman asked if the proposed variance would encroach on the adjoining residences.

 

Kim Buttrum, Senior Planner stated there will be a 50-foot buffer between the residences and the business.

 

Mr. Edelman asked for the uses for the General Commercial zoning district.

 

Ms. Holmes stated examples are hotels, auto repair uses, banks, restaurants, personal services, retail sales, and self-storage.

 

Mr. Edelman asked why staff chose 10:00 pm rather than 6:00 pm.

 

Ms. Holmes stated that staff based their decision on the noise ordinance because the decibels levels decrease at 10:00 pm.

 

John Wycoff, the applicant came forward to address the Commission.

 

Mr. Wycoff stated the applicant has proposed a one-story office warehouse building.

 

Mr. Owens asked the proposed height of the one-story building.

 

Mr. Wycoff in response stated 16-20 feet.

 

Mr. Koonce asked if a 25 foot building would suffice.

 

Mr. Wycoff responded affirmatively.

 

Mr. Glasper stated that 33 letters of opposition were received for the April 6th meeting.

 

Mr. Glasper further informed the Commission that 30 letters of opposition were received for the May 18th meeting.

 

Mr. Williams opened the public hearing at 6:36 pm.

 

Stan Delikat, 318 Green Oaks Dr.: Opposed

 

Eloise Taylor, 306 Winding Oak S: Opposed

 

Lee Brock, 4890 W Main St: Opposed

 

Carl Nepute, 217 Oak Creek Dr.: Opposed

 

Jeff Mallios, 236 Creekview: Opposed

 

David Isgate, 304 Winding Oak S: Opposed

 

Amanda Isgate, 304 Winding Oak S: Opposed

 

Scott Freudenburg, 2108 Sierra St.: Opposed

 

Mr. Williams closed the public hearing at 6:55 pm.

 

John Wycoff came forward to address the resident?s concerns.

 

Mr. Edelman asked why the applicant could not utilize the City?s utilities.

 

Mr. Wycoff stated the subdivision and a neighboring property owner to the west would not allow the owner to access area utilities. 

 

Mr. Edelman asked if the applicant would consider building a taller wall to buffer.

 

Mr. Wycoff responded negatively.

 

Mr. Koonce made a motion to approve BP09-01R (Wood?s Business Park) subject to staff?s conditions and the height of the structure limited to 25 feet.

 

Mr. Turner seconded the motion.

 

Mr. Edelman asked staff to guide the Commission in taking action. Mr. Edelman asked if the Commission should consider the public testimony or the rules and ordinances that are in place.

 

Tony Allender, Land Management Director stated the Commission should ask themselves that if all items added make up for the loss of 30 feet in buffer yard space.

 

Mr. Koonce asked if the Commission would review the site plan.

 

Ms. Holmes stated the Commission could add site plan review as a condition.

 

Mr. Koonce and Mr. Turner amended their motion and second to add site plan review as a condition.

 

The motion was adopted by a vote of 4-3-0.

 

Mr. Bogus, Mr. Owens, and Mr. Williams were in opposition.  

 

IV.       Tabled and Subject to Recall

 

                 A.            Consider and take action on a Final Plat ? Cypress Bay, Section 3, zoned RSF-5 (Single-family residential with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet), RSF-7 (Single-family residential with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet) and OS (Open Space), generally located north of Marina Bay Drive (FM 2094) and west of Seminole Drive.

 

Mr. Koonce made a motion to take this item off the table.

 

Mr. Turner seconded the motion.

 

The motion was adopted unanimously.

 

Mr. Edelman stated his understanding was that there were items that needed to be resolved before the Commission would take action.

 

Mr. Edelman further stated that he did not understand why the Commission would do so without knowing those items were resolved.

 

Ms. Holmes stated the Commission had to remove the item off the table to discuss.

 

Heidi Shannon, Planner came forward to address the Commission.

 

Ms. Shannon stated the applicant has removed from the plat the property where the Seminole bridge was previously located.

 

Ms. Shannon further informed the Commission that the applicant added a note labeling the canal portion as an easement to HL&P.

 

Mr. Koonce questioned staff about attachment 6 to the staff report.

 

Mr. Allender, in response stated staff was not able to submit the letter to the Commission due to attorney-client privilege.

 

Mr. Allender addressed several points of the letter with the Commission.

 

Mr. Allender stated the bridge was removed from Section 3 and is not to be included within the Commission?s consideration.

 

Mr. Allender further informed the Commission that the deadline to take action is the upcoming Thursday and the Commission would need to take action.

 

Mr. Bogus asked if the Commission denies the application would the State of Texas still take action.

 

Mr. Allender responded negatively, stating the State of Texas would only take action if the Commission does not approve or deny the application.

 

Mr. Edelman asked if there is a possibility that the City may be sued if the Commission denies the application.

 

Ms. Roberts stated there is always the possibility of a lawsuit.

 

Mr. Edelman asked if a public hearing has taken place.

 

Ms. Holmes responded affirmatively stating a public hearing was held when the preliminary plat was submitted.

 

Joseph Fulcher, the applicant?s attorney came forward to address the Commission.

 

Mr. Fulcher stated that a lawsuit would be filed if the Planning and Zoning Commission did not approve the plat because the applicant has satisfied drainage issues and noted the expenses incurred throughout development of the subdivision.

 

Mr. Koonce asked Mr. Fulcher if he was referring to the drainage for Cypress Bay, Section 3.

 

Mr. Koonce asked how the drainage for Glen Cove has been improved.

 

Mr. Fulcher in response stated he was not referring to Glen Cove but Cypress Bay, Section 3.

 

Mr. Edelman made a motion to approve Final Plat ? Cypress Bay, Section 3.

 

Mr. Turner seconded the motion.

 

The motion to approve was adopted by a vote of 4-3-0.

 

Mr. Koonce, Mr. Lake and Mr. Bogus were in opposition.

 

B.     Consider and take action on Z09-01 (South Hammock), a request to rezone approximately 2.8 acres from RSF-5 (Single-family residential with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet) to IL (Limited Industrial), legally described as portions of Lot 27-1 and Lot 27-2 of League City Division C, generally located north of Austin Street and east of  Texas Avenue, with the approximate address being 920 Texas Avenue. (PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ON 04/06/09)

 

Mr. Bogus made a motion to take this item off the table.

 

Mr. Koonce seconded the motion.

 

The motion was adopted by a vote of 6-1-0.

 

Mr. Lake was in opposition.

 

Dausha Moore, Planner came forward to restate the staff report for this item.

 

Ms. Moore informed the Commission that she would provide answers to the 5 unanswered questions the Commission had at the April 20th meeting.

 

  1. What would the tax rate be with a producing well on this property?

A well that produced minerals with a taxable value of $500 or more would be taxed at $0.63 per $100 valuation. In addition, the value of the land itself would be taxed at $0.63 per $100 valuation. It is not possible to give an estimated tax value since the quantity and type of minerals are unknown at this time.

 

  1. What would be an alternative access route to the site? 

The applicant has coordinated with the Engineering Department and determined that the proposed alternative route would be to utilize State Highway 96 from Interstate Highway 45 east to FM 270, then north to Austin Street.  The applicant has submitted a ?Traffic Routing and Management Plan? denoting the proposed routes.

  1. How many barrels of oil are expected to be produced within a given time frame? 

This information was not available at the time this report was sent to the Commission. The applicant will have the information at the meeting.

  1. If natural gas if found, what pipelines would be used?

This information was not available at the time this report was sent to the Commission. The applicant will have the information at the meeting.

  1. Maximum height of the tank batteries? 

The maximum size of the tanks would be 15 feet in diameter and 12 feet, 9 inches in height.

 

Ms. Moore further informed the Commission that staff has added potential conditions that deliveries and/or pickups shall occur between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm and take the routes denoted on the Traffic Routing and Management Plan.

 

Ms. Moore stated that the surrounding property owners have submitted a petition to oppose this request; however, the petition submitted does not meet the requirements of Section 211.006(d) of the Texas Government Code.

 

Travis Faul with T. Baker Smith came forward to address the Commission.

 

Mr. Faul stated the applicant has proposed to restrict the travel times to the site.

 

Mr. Faul further stated the delivery to the site would be done over a course of 3 days.

 

Mr. Faul informed the Commission that the results from a noise study showed the applicant has met the requirements and complied with city ordinance.

 

Mr. Faul stated the total water usage is approximately 8,000-12,000 gallons per day.

 

Mr. Faul stated natural gas would be transported from the site via pipeline.

 

Mr. Edelman asked how the natural gas would be transported if the property owners do not give access easements to the applicant.

 

Gary Shank stated the applicant would not drill for gas if easements are not obtained from the property owners.

 

Mr. Edelman asked staff if there was a requirement for a minimum amount of insurance for mining and drilling.

 

Ms. Moore stated the applicant is responsible for public liability insurance with a minimum of $100,000 for each person and $300,000 for each accident.

 

Mr. Lake asked how many days the applicant anticipates for construction.

 

Mr. Faul responded 60 days.

 

Mr. Edelman made a motion to approve Z09-01 (South Hammock) with staff?s potential conditions, no groundwater pumping conducted, the applicant would be responsible for obtaining a $10,000,000 insurance policy for the adjoining property and $3,000,000 for each accident, no venting of natural gas and to widen Austin St. to acceptable standards prior to drilling, and to install 3-inch caliper trees.

 

Mr. Lake seconded the motion.

 

In response to Mr. Edelman?s motion, Mr. Shank stated he was not sure that the applicant would be able to widen Austin Street.

 

Mr. Bogus asked Mr. Allender to address the Commission?s concerns.

 

Mr. Allender stated widening the street would be very expensive for the applicant.

 

Mr. Edelman informed the Commission that the nature of his motion was to ensure the safety of the residents.

 

Mr. Edelman clarified his motion stating he would like the applicant to widen the entrance area and the Austin Street, Texas Avenue intersection.

 

In response to Mr. Edelman?s clarification, Mr. Shank agreed to widening the turning radius.

 

The motion was adopted unanimously.

 

C.             Consider and take action on SUP09-02 (South Hammock), a request for a Special Use Permit (SUP) on approximately 2.8 acres for a mining and drilling use [oil and gas] in the IL (Limited Industrial) zoning district, legally described as portions of Lot 27-1 and Lot 27-2 of League City Division C, generally located north of Austin Street and east of Texas Avenue, with the approximate address being 920 Texas Avenue. (PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ON 04/06/09)

 

Mr. Edelman made a motion to take this item off the table.

 

Mr. Bogus seconded the motion.

 

The motion was adopted by a vote of 7-0-0.

 

Mr. Edelman made a motion to approve SUP09-02 (South Hammock) subject to staff?s conditions.

 

Mr. Koonce seconded the motion.

 

The motion was adopted unanimously.

 

VI.              Adjournment

 

Mr. Williams adjourned the meeting at 8:43 pm.

 



 

___________________________________              ______________________________

LaShondra Holmes, AICP                                         Wade Williams

Planning Manager                                                      Vice-Chairman

 

 

Date minutes approved: ___________________