Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Minutes-12/16/2002 L_ PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - December 16, 2002 Chairman Jeffrey Wall called the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 7:00 P.M. on December 16,2002. Roll Call: Present: Bob Culley, Earl Swift, Jeff Byerly, Bud Sellers, Mark Jones, Jeff Wall Bruce Kelly Clayton Husband, Jeff Jones Absent: Staff: Invocation: Commissioner Byerly Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Minutes: December 2, 2002 Commissioner Culley moved to approve the minutes of the December 2, 2002. Commissioner Swift seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous acclamation. Citizen Comments: There were none. 1. Case Z-02-036 - PUBLIC HEARING - Special Use Permit for an Accessory Bu jlding on Lot 11, Block 2, Highland Acres located at 305 Timberline N. Clayton Husband presented the case to the Commission and reviewed the staff briefing. He explained the reason a Special Use Permit was required and described the accessory building the applicant plans on building. He informed the commissioners that the applicant has stated he plans on using the building only for personal use and storage as they already have an existing garage on the site. There was discussion about the existing buildings on the property. Chairman Wall opened the public hearing and requested that the applicant address the Commission. Carl Callaway, 305 Timberline Street N., came forward. He told the commissioners that the front part of the proposed garage will not be visible from the street. He answered questions by the commissioners and told them there would be no commercial use of the garage, only personal use. There was no one else present wishing to speak and Chairman Wall closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sellers discussed previous cases the Commission has considered for much larger garages and the kinds of restrictions they have required of those applicants. Clayton Husband told Commissioner Sellers that the reason Special Use Permits are considered on a case-by-case Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - December 2, 2002 Page 1 of 13 - Draft #1 basis is so the commissioners can address issues that are specific to a given area, building, or request. The commissioners talked about visibility being the major concern in these cases and this case does not present that problem. Clayton Husband said each case is unique and considered on an individual basis and the commissioners would not be setting a precedent by not requiring similar items from this applicant as they have from previous applicants. The applicant answered questions by the commissioners and informed them the paved area adjacent to the accessory building would be used to park his trailer he uses for his antique cars. He also told them the access to the accessory building would be on the left hand side of the property and there will be no driveway because it would be seldom used. He said he plans on storing King Midget cars which are very small 80 pound, 2 passenger cars. Commissioner Culley moved to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit. Commissioner Sellers seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Culley, Swift, Byerly, Sellers, Jones, Wall Noes: None 2. Case Z-02-028 - PUBLIC HEARING - Zoning Change from AG to PUD-R Planned Unit Development Residential on 3.561 acres located at 414 W. McDonwell School Road Chairman Wall asked staff to comment on the letter from the law firm of Hill Gilstrap and asked because of the objections raised in the letter, why is the Commission looking at the case when the letter states the applicant will not agree to the package and his lawyer objects to the case being before the Planning and Zoning Commission? Clayton Husband said the PUD-R application is a negotiated type of zoning district to where any applicant, in any case, will propose conditions they might want to include in the project and staff will propose what will or will not work based on the codes, their opinions, surrounding properties, etc. and will present both side to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said this is standard procedure in all PUD-R cases and staff prepares a draft ordinance for the commissioners to see how the case will be organized so when they consider individual items they can see the format and how they will be in placed within the ordinance or how they may affect other areas. He said the P&Z packet also includes the requirements the developer proposes for the development and those are discussion points at this point in the process. Mr. Husband said the Commission and Council may consider all of the items and change any of the items. Chairman Wall asked if the letter states the request has not been sought by the applicant, why is the case before them? Clayton Husband said the applicant has requested a PUD-R and that is a zoning district where those items need to be negotiated between the Planning & Zoning Commission, City Council, and the applicant. He said what the commissioners have before them is staff's opinion of what those conditions should be. He said if the applicant submitted an R40 request and staff said, "No, we're going to change that to R20 and that is how we're going to advertise it, because that's what we think you should have", that's different, because staff would have dramatically changed what the applicant was requesting. He said with a PUD-R the Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - Oecember 2, 2002 Page 2 of 13 - Draft #1 conditions are negotiated until the City Council takes final action. Mr. Husband said the City Attorney has responded to questions from staff and commented that staff is doing nothing in the process that would cause him any concern. Commissioner Jones referred to the comment in the letter from David Bagwell about the "highly objectionable legal error committed by the City Staff" and asked Mr. Husband if David Bagwell is continuing to make this argument or if that issue has been settled. Mr. Husband said the applicant is making an argument that staff has done something that is not compliant with the law and that is not necessarily the case. Commissioner Jones asked Mr. Husband if David Bagwell is pursuing it though. Mr. Husband responded that the correspondence from Mr. Bagwell is the only correspondence staff has received regarding the case. NOTE: Commissioner Sellers recused himself from the case and stepped down from the dais. Commissioner Byerly said when he reads the Hill Gilstrap letter, the key words are in the second paragraph and it basically says the PUD is to be initiated by the property owner and not initiated by the City or City Staff. He commented that the application was made by David Bagwell and the property owner Linda Baker. Chairman Wall said he will rely on staff and he just wanted a full explanation before the commissioners went forward with the case. The chairman said City Council has access to the City's attorney and the commissioners do not, and it puts them in an awkward position of meeting on an issue where there is a legal question. Clayton Husband presented the case to the commissioners and reviewed the staff briefing. He discussed the access to the lots and how the issue does not have any impact on the zoning, but may be worthy of discussion. He said ultimately the issue of access will be addressed at time of plat submittal. Commissioner Swift asked staff if the proper access is not obtained, will that kill the proposal? Clayton Husband responded that it does not necessarily kill the proposal, but the developer will have to consider all options to gain access to every lot within the subdivision. He said the zoning establishes the size of lots and open space requirements and those requirements influence the plat. Mr. Husband said the applicant has requested several things in the PUD-R that the developer wants looked at globally over the entire PUD-R for the Westcliff development and the Old Grove development which is over 100 acres combined. Clayton Husband said the density is approximately 1.66 units per acre and that is well within the master plan requirements. He said the proposal would meet the PUD-R requirements if viewed over the whole project area and staff can support that request. He said the location of the trail will need to be resolved when the access to the lots issue is resolved. Commissioner Jones commented on the large amount of exceptions the developer is requesting and the staff's comment that the developer has made good faith efforts to design the project in a consistent matter and how these seem like conflicting statements. Clayton Husband said the PUD-R ordinance is designed for those hard to develop pieces of property by themselves and Mr. Bagwell has done what he needs to do for this particular piece of property to try and incorporate it into the larger project so it is consistent with what they are doing overall. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - December 2, 2002 Page 3 of 13 - Draft #1 Commissioner Culley asked for discussion on the sidewalk and trail issue. Clayton Husband explained the options for the hike and bike trail in the location and how trails built along streets function as wide sidewalks. He said there will be some areas in the project where the trails will go through greenbelts, parks, and private open space areas north of this property. Clayton said this will be a location where there may be a few driveways that go across the trail and that is not unusual. Commissioner Culley asked about the feasibility of locating the trail behind the lots. Staff responded that may be something that could be discussed with the developer. Clayton Husband discussed the issue of conflicting language mentioned by the developer. He said that issue was written about in the briefing, but he would discuss it them with the commissioners if they requested. Chairman Wall opened the public hearing. Edward Eckert, Goodwin & Marshall, representing the developer David Bagwell, was present to represent the case. He told the commissioners that the attorney representing David Bagwell took the opinion that staff did not have the right to alter the PUD ordinance that was submitted. Chairman Wall asked Mr. Eckert, "Based on that objection, do you wish to withdraw the PUD request?" Mr. Eckert responded that according to his latest conversation with Mr. Bagwell, Mr. Bagwell did not indicated they should remove themselves and/or table themselves until this issue is resolved, Mr. Eckert said the items that have been withdrawn so far are not "deal breakers". Chairman Wall told Mr. Eckert that the letter from David Bagwell's attorney states that Mr. Bagwell will not approve any PUD-R that is not word for word what he submitted. Mr. Eckert said that Mr. Bagwell may still do that, but his understanding is that Mr. Bagwell did not have any problems with anything that was faxed to him by staff today and he did not mention any concerns, issues, or problems and he did not request the case to be withdrawn. There being no one else present wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Staff reviewed the regulations for approval of a PUD and stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council has free reign to impose any conditions they feel are necessary in any PUD-R ordinance, with or without the objection of any particular applicant. He told the commissioners that it is always good to try and negotiate those conditions and try to get some consensus on what the conditions should be. Mr. Husband told the commissioners that the ordinance that is included in their packet is not necessarily an ordinance they are considering, but is merely a discussion point so they can see how the PUD is laid out and so they can see how the conditions interact with each other. He said it may be the prerogative of the Commission to strike all of the conditions and add others. Chairman Wall reminded the commissioners that the applicant has submitted letters like the one from his attorney before and he has viewed them as a tool for negotiation. Commissioner Byerly initiated discussion about the lot access issue and asked about the possibility of requiring sprinkler systems in the homes. Fire Marshal Jones said the zoning request as presented does not include a cul-de-sac and if the applicant modified the request at time of platting, and wanted to go back to the cul-de-sac design rather than providing access off Newkirk, the fire department's position would be they couldn't make a u-turn off Newkirk onto the Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - December 2, 2002 Page 4 of 13 - Draft #1 proposed street. He said ifthe developer could satisfy the turn requirements, the fire department would support them at time of platting. Fire Marshal Jones said he would not recommend changing the zoning to require sprinklers. Clayton Husband told Commissioner Byerly that sometimes a sprinkler system in homes wa~ placed in a PUD, but the Land Development Code currently almost requires sprinkler systems in some cases depending on how the property is designed. He said a sprinkler system requirement could not be a blanket requirement at platting unless it was included in the PUD or the developer triggered something that required sprinkler systems within the homes. Fire Marshal Jones said he would hate to impose a sprinkler requirement in this zoning ordinance, because it appears the developer and current land owner can work out an access agreement off Newkirk. He said the only way the developer could create a cul-de-sac is to meet the turning radius requirements. There was discussion about the site plan being a conceptual plan. Commissioner Culley moved to approve the PUD-R with the following language being added to the ordinance: . This development shall be subject to all impact fees as of the date of approval of the final plat. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Kelly, Culley, Swift, Byerly, Sellers, Jones, Wall Noes: None 3. Case Z-02-034 TABLED ITEM - Zoning Change from AG to PUD-C Planned Unit Development Commercial on 4.268 acres located on the east side of Colleyville Boulevard, north of Tarrant Lane Commissioner Jones moved to remove the item from the table. Commissioner Culley seconded the motion. The motion passed by acclamation. Clayton Husband updated the commissioner on the case and reviewed the staff briefing. There was discussion by the commissioners regarding the location of the entrance into the subdivision off Colleyville Blvd. Clayton Husband responded that he does not know the status of the applicant's negotiations regarding the entrance. Chairman Wall asked the applicant to come forward and address the Commission. Dwayne Young, 608 Sabine Court, Hurst, Texas was present to represent the case. Commissioner Swift asked Mr. Young if the owner of the property adjacent facing Colleyville Blvd. agreed to render some property to improve the entrance. Mr. Young said they are currently in negotiations and their talks are going well and the owner wanted Mr. Young to tell the commissioners that they have entered into negotiations. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - December 2, 2002 Page 5 of 13 - Draft #1 Chairman Wall asked Mr. Young if any of the Fire Chiefs comments give him cause for concern or are the items unworkable. Mr. Young responded that he is all right with the four items listed in the briefing; however, the secondary access on the north side of the property going to the existing property will be done away with. He said they will put the secondary access on the south side of the property. My Young said the asphalt that is currently there will no longer have a bearing on their development. He said they cannot block off access to Ms. Mooney's property so they have no intentions to use the road. Commissioner Sellers asked the applicant for clarification about the secondary access on the south side of the property. Mr. Young responded they will be responsible for butting the access up to the property line and they will visit with the owner of the property to the south to see if he will plan a fire lane across the back of his property. Commissioner Sellers asked Mr. Young what will happen if they are not able to secure a deal with the property owner to the south. Fire Marshal Jones said there will be a 35' entrance off Colleyville Blvd. and 24' streets throughout the subdivision and the requirement that the buildings be equipped with sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems does give them a little comfort. He said if someone was in the last building and the entrance is blocked, the fire department may not get to the emergency. Fire Marshal Jones said the entrance design was a platting issue, but the sprinkler requirements, fire alarm requirements need to be addressed in the zoning. Clayton Husband said any building over 6,000 s.f. in size will be required by Code to have a sprinkler system, but if it is in the ordinance that all buildings have to have sprinkler systems, they will have to have it regardless of the size. Steve Young said the requests that all buildings are required to have sprinklers and the fire lanes need to be accessible from two directions require him to redesign the layout. He said they are aware that they need a second source of water. Clayton Husband said several items are for discussion purposes to notify the applicant areas that may cause concern when the subdivision is built. The applicant, Dwayne Young, said he has appreciated the comments. Commissioner Sellers said the secondary entryway is still a concern for him, because that access is not guaranteed. Fire Marshal Jones said although the second entrance is something they would like the applicant to provide, it is not something they would count on. Commissioner Sellers asked the Fire Marshal what he would recommend to alleviate the problem if the entrance is blocked and there is an emergency at the back building. The Fire Marshal said the best use of the property needs to be looked at, and Mr. Young said there is some room to widen the entrance. Commissioner Jones said the observations for future development of the property are appropriate and whatever action the commissioners take regarding the zoning issue, the platting issues will not go away. Fire Marshall Jones said if the property is rezoned as requested and the applicants developed the land with one single 52,000 square foot, three story building, which is allowed by right, with a single driveway off Colleyville Blvd. and a fire lane that surrounded the building, as long as there was a sprinkler system and an alarm system, by Code there would be nothing the fire department could object to. He said staff does not know right now how the applicant will plat the property, but the reason for his comments is so there will be no surprise for the developer when they bring a plat forward He said they will know what the fire department's requirements will be. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - December 2, 2002 Page 6 of 13 - Draft #1 Commissioner Swift said he is thinking about all of the times the fire marshal has made his point regarding secondary access and he stated that he did not think the issue of a secondary access is being addressed in a number of respects. He related to the width of access roads and the absence of a secondary access. He asked staff if his questions were related to platting or zoning issues. Clayton Husband responded that those questions are related to development issues that can be covered under both categories. He said he talked to the developers about trying to pursuing an access off Tarrant Lane to the south and he believes that is the most logical solution to provide some sort of second access into the project and it would not harm the future development of properties to the south because of the access being in the rear of the properties and would become an improvement to the adjacent lots to facilitate future commercial development. Mr. Husband said there would be a risk involved if the property to the south was not developed, but with the stub already there, once buildings go up on the considered property, the properties to the south become more interesting for development. He responded to Commissioner Swift that he may include the secondary access in a motion. Commissioner Swift said it is important to listen to the professional, Fire Marshal Jones, and endorse his comments. The applicant, Dwayne Young, said he agreed with the Fire Marshal's comments and if he had his way, he would put a secondary access and even recommended it to be adjacent to Hart Pool as that way it would connect to Hwy. 26. Mr. Young said the problem is the location of the secondary access is not on their property and they have an odd shaped piece of property to develop and that is why they are applying for a PUD-C. He told the commissioners that the property has been sitting pretty much vacant for many years, and has been misused, mishandled, and underdeveloped and one of the main reasons is because there is one way in and one way out. He said they are working with the surrounding property owners to get rights-of-way for ingress and egress and this is about the best the property is going to get. Mr. Young said if there are requirements placed on the property that the developers cannot control, like entrances on property they don't own, the property may not be developed. He said they only have control over one access and they are widening the approach, redesigning the project to have emergency access to the buildings from two directions, and adding sprinkler systems for the buildings. Mr. Young said he believed the Fire Marshall has added safety measures because of the project only having one access and those are improvements above what would normally be required in a commercial development. He told the commissioners that there will be ample room for emergency access and if more room is needed they can include that at time of platting. He said the secondary access issue is beyond his control. Commissioner Sellers asked Mr. Young if there was no possible secondary access even though the commissioners requested it, can regulations be included to ensure a wider entrance at time of platting. Fire Marshal Jones responded that the commissioners can require wider fire lanes and if this were a residential subdivision with a single entrance, the street width would be 41' - He said that would decrease the number of buildings that could be built on the property because the current plan shows 24' fire lanes. Commissioner Sellers asked the fire marshal what the minimum width of fire lanes he would want, knowing what the situation is with only having one point of access. Clayton Husband said if one uses the analogy of this being a single entry subdivision, if it were residential, the entrance would be 41' of pavement for approximately 100' before it is narrowed down to a standard 31' wide street. He did say that these are not necessarily public Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - December 2, 2002 Page 7 of 13 - Draft #1 streets, because they are generally lines on the property that restrict where someone can and cannot park. He advised the commissioners to be cautious in requiring a larger fire lane that would be well beyond the normal requirements because the property will be eaten up with concrete paving, decreased building size and will become an economic impact issue where the property may no longer be feasible to develop. Commissioner Sellers said that did not answer his question. He again asked Fire Marshal Jones, given his experience and background, knowing that piece of property as it exists today, what does he feel comfortable with? Fire Marshal Jones said that 35' wide fire lanes would allow apparatus to pass and he would still require access from both sides. He said the 35' would allow equipment to sit side-by-side or one to pass if one was already parked in a fire lane. He said once a fire truck is parked in a 24' fire lane. you can't get around it. Commissioner Swift asked if it were not possible to make all of the current 24' roadways 35' roadways, could the project be designed with only having 35' fire lanes on one or two roadways? Fire Marshal Jones responded to Commissioner Swift's question by saying this is only a conceptual site plan, so they would be depending on the building layout as presented, but as an alternative the commissioners my say that fire lanes may be increased an additional amount of footage as required by the Fire Marshal at time of platting. Mr. Young said that may be acceptable. Fire Marshal Jones said it depends at how many buildings they have at time of platting. Mr. Young asked the Fire Marshal if he is going to be requiring the developer to permit access from two directions, why do the fire trucks need to pass each other? Fire Marshal Jones said his answer of 35' wide fire lanes was in response to the commissioners' questions. Commissioner Culley said although he appreciates the exchanges that have taken place, the Commission needs to get the case down to a reasonable level and would like to see them approach the case with a solution and not put onerous restrictions and rule out the developer from going forward with the development. He asked staff if they have the ability to place language in the ordinance but leave some latitude to go forward similar to Fire Marshal suggested because they are amenable to trying to work the plan out because the plan as presented looks terrible and he doesn't see people coming in to support two entrances. He said he felt they needed to deal with the one entrance and try to get to a point with the language in the ordinance to move forward and provide a safety measure for the fire department. He told Chairman Wall that he would like to move forward with language that puts the issue in the hands of the Fire Marshal and at the same time protect the community and commissioners as was previously stated by Commissioner Sellers. He said he would like to see discussion and consensus on the fence. Chairman Wall asked staff if the language needs to be placed in the document that addresses the fire lanes at this point since they have made the point that it will become an issue at time of platting. Clayton Husband said a statement in the ordinance that required the developer and Fire Marshal to agree to whatever, that will be the case. He said most times the fire lanes are not shown on the plat as easements and that issue comes down to when the developer submits site plans for development of the property. He said the proposal they are considering tonight includes a conceptual site plan and is only conceptual in nature. Chairman Wall asked if they could include language that the fire lanes will be worked out between the staff and developer so the developer has to provide an approved fire lane and street plan at time of platting. He said what he proposes Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - December 2, 2002 Page 8 of 13 - Draft #1 not to do is leave the issue of fire lanes in the lap of the Chief because it needs to come before the Commission at time of the platting process for approval. He said he wants to put the onus on the elected representative of the City and the appointed Planning & Zoning Commission rather than the Chief. Commissioner Culley said there were several residents that had issues with the wood fence at the last meeting. He said the developer has presented a document that the fence would be an attractive fence built on a concrete base, will be 8' tall, and the upkeep will be the developer's responsibility. Chairman Wall asked for more public comment. Commissioner Jones moved to open a public hearing. Commissioner Byerly seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous acclamation. Chairman Wall re-opened the public hearing. Jim Graham, 6616 McMakin Court. said the fence solution as it is proposed is acceptable to himself. He said he spoke to his neighbor at 6618 McMakin and it is also acceptable to him. Mr. Graham spoke about the current use of the property and the unsightliness of the debris. Chairman Wall told Mr. Graham that the current conditions of the property are not a provision of the case that is before the commissioners for their consideration. He said they have all visited the site and commiserate with the neighbors, but they are not dealing with the current use of the property, but the future use of the property. Mr. Graham said he has spoken to Steve Perez and Barry LeBaron but has not gotten a resolution to the problem. Chairman Wall suggested Mr. Graham should go again to the Code Enforcement official and then the City Manager and possibly the city officials that were elected to office, the City Council and Mayor. Mr. Graham said staff said the current uses of the property were grand-fathered for their use and he wanted to assure the commissioners that the businesses never were given a variance nor have there been any zoning changes applied for since he has owned the adjacent property. Chairman Wall acknowledged that upon seeing Mr. Graham's e-mail he contacted staff and he was told by staff that the e-mail was passed onto Code Enforcement and he felt Mr. Graham had every right to take his concern onto the City Manager and to the City Council and Mayor. Commissioner Culley said that the code enforcement process takes time to follow legal channels and Mr. Graham should be patient, he knows that the City will address his concerns and he is not being ignored. Mr. Graham said, otherwise, he is basically in favor of the development and found Mr. Ingle to be receptive to his issues and willing to discuss them. There was no one else present wishing to speak and the public hearing was closed. Clayton Husband requested the commissioners consider including in their motion the issues regarding fire sprinkler systems and the fire lane access out to the south as was discussed at length. He told the commissioners there was discussion at the last meeting about automotive uses and other uses on the property. He said the ordinance that is in the packet includes one automotive business on the site and will be further narrowed down to require that the automotive business will be located within the middle area of the property and not adjacent to any residential property. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - December 2. 2002 Page 9 of 13 - Draft #1 Chairman Wall moved to recommend approval of the PUD-C with the following conditions: . All buildings on the site are required to have sprinklers and fire alarms as specified by the Fire Marshal; . There will be a stub.out on the south side ofthe property to allow the opportunity for a second access; . Amend wording on item # 7 of the draft ordinance by adding there will be a zero lumen at the property edge Commissioner Culley seconded the motion. Commissioner Sellers moved to add the following: . No operation of businesses within a full 24 hour period to restrict 24 hour of operation; Commissioner Swift said he did not think he could agree with that provision since some telecom and software businesses operate 24 hours and they would be desirable tenants for a business development like this because they are clean businesses with no trucks. Commissioner Byerly asked staff if they could restrict hours and then require a Special Use Permit if someone wants to operate outside those hours. Clayton Husband responded that if there is a specific activity that they are trying to restrict with a 24 hour provision, that activity should be mentioned. Commissioner Sellers said he would like to see provisions for the loading and off-loading on the northeast corner of the property. He said he would like to see loading and off-loading limited to a specific area. Clayton Husband told the commissioners there are some provisions in the Land Development Code deal with loading and unloading areas in general and that is an issue that comes into play when they submit building permits and how they will layout the buildings. He said it is a good idea to give the developer a "heads up" so he can plan for that and possibly stating something by adding a statement that if loading and unloading are going to be provided they can't be provided in a fire lane. Commissioner Sellers said he would like to see a description of the fence provided in the ordinance. Commissioner Culley suggested that when the proposal for the final design is considered, the specs for the fence be added to the ordinance. Clayton Husband responded that he can come up with the standard specs for that particular fence and include them specifically in the ordinance and attach the fence design as an exhibit. Commissioner Sellers said he wanted to designate that the auto repair location be included in the ordinance and he still has concerns about if the stub-out to the south does not come into fruition, he would like to see the fire lanes become adequate for the Fire Marshal to agree to the project. Clayton Husband said the commissioners had discussed earlier about those detailed arrangements being worked out between the developer and Fire Marshal at the time the developer is ready to layout the subdivision. He said rather than relying on the conceptual site Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - December 2, 2002 Page 10 of 13 - Draft #1 plan, they reply on the existing codes and the authorities that fall under those to deal with that situation. Commissioner Swift said he thought they had agreed to some sort of language to address that concern by stating lanes might be increased to 35' or in excess of 24' based on the Fire Marshal's requirements at time of platting. Chairman Wall stated the additions that were agreed upon are: . Fire lanes and the possible need to widen them in the future will be agreed upon by the developer and Fire Marshall; . Designation of the location of the auto repair facility; . Fence design specifications; and . No 24-hour operations allowed. Commissioner Culley said the no 24-hour operation is so ambiguous that he would like to address that comment as, "What would he like behind his house?" He said he would like no outside activity after 9 p.m. of any kind in the terms of any sort of deliveries that may occur. He said deliveries should be done by the time he goes to bed. He said he can hear the deliveries at the nearby grocery store from his house and they go on all night long. He said he would like to see restrictions for outside commercial activities without saying they can't have a 24-hour business like some type of service business that takes place within the building and does not disturb the neighbors after a certain hour. Chairman Wall suggested placing restrictions on the area adjacent to residential uses by limiting activity along the fence lane. Chairman Wall asked what the Master Plan designation was for the property adjacent to the current residential area when the houses were built in Ross Downs. Clayton responded that there were commercial uses on the property in the mid-80's. Clayton Husband said the reason the PUD-C exists is so they may place those kinds of restrictions on the developer. Commissioner Swift said they should reassess the concern. He said he felt there are only two issues on this property that affect the adjacent residents and one is noise and the other is lighting after hours. He said they can restrict the noise from delivery vehicles and machinery to specific hours and lighting has already been covered. Commissioner Swift said if this was his proposal he would want to be able to attract 24 hour administrative and office ventures. Commissioner Culley said he believes the developer understands their concerns and will not seek a tenant that will create a problem with the adjacent residents and he agrees with Commissioner Swift in terms of not restricting any sort of an indoor 24-hour activity, but cut-off the outdoor activities at a certain hour so the residents can have peace and quiet. Clayton Husband said that Commissioner Culley suggested not allowing outdoor commercial activities after 9 p.m. and if they define what kind of commercial activities are not permitted after 9 p.m. staff can include that in the ordinance. He said he has heard discussion about delivery vehicles, operating machinery and things of that nature to be added, but the more specific, the better the enforcement capabilities. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - December 2, 2002 Page 11 of 13 - Draft #1 Chairman Wall suggested adding to the ordinance: . No commercial vehicles . No pickup or delivery . No operation of commercial of industrial equipment between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Commissioner Swift seconded the friendly amendment. Chairman Wall stated that the regulations stated by Commissioner Sellers regarding the fence design, the fire lanes, and the designation ofthe location ofthe automotive business are also included in the friendly amendment. Chairman Wall said he accepted the friendly amendment so the friendly amendment will become a part of the original motion. Commissioner Culley said he seconded the original motion and he is in favor of the friendly amendment. Chairman Wall called for the vote. The vote being: Ayes: Culley, Swift, Byerly, Sellers, Jones, Wall Noes: None 4. Staff comments, reports and discussion items: There were none. 5. Commissioners' comments and reports: Commissioner Byerly asked staff for an update on the Windview replat that was removed from a previous agenda. Clayton Husband responded the City Attorney said the City was "non-suited" and the HOA and the lot owner were going to work something out. He said the case is currently inactive and will not come forward unless staff is directed by the applicant. There was discussion about the Highway 26 project and the intersection improvement at John McCain and Westcoat. Commissioner Culley expressed appreciation of the Chairman's position when there is an outburst from the floor and how he handled the situation. ADJOURNMENT: The Commission moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. The motion was seconded and passed by acclamation. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - December 2, 2002 Page 12 of 13 - Draft #1 Respectfully Submitted, Jan Levy Planning & Zoning Assistant Approved on: NOTE: As a matter of public record, an audio recording of this Planning and Zoning Commission meeting Is available upon request. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - December 2, 2002 Page 13 of 13 - Draft #1