Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Agenda Packets-6/27/2005 ~ Texas AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION City Hall Council Chambers -100 Main Street Monday, June 27, 2005 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Commissioners Thomas Dolan, David Dudziak, Thomas Bartkowski, Jeff Byerly, Luann Edwards, John Blassingame and Denis Duffy INVOCATION Commissioner Bartkowski PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 13, 2005 Reconsideration of May 9,2005 minutes CITIZEN COMMENTS REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS 1. Case Z-05-018- PUBLIC HEARING- Special Use Permit for a covered carport on Lot 4, Block 1, Community Home Addition, located at 1508 Cherry Lane TABLED ITEMS STAFF COMMENTS, REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS AND REPORTS Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -June 27, 2005 Page 1 of1 .~ Texas PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 13, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Byerly called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Dudziak, Thomas Bartkow Blassingame, Denis D present. s Dolan, Dave ann Edwards, John Jeff Byerly were Barry LeBaron, staff were pres INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Edwards moved to appr ay 23, 2005 meeting front of being in the neer c ed the plans had been e "owner's" to "owners" in the third REGULAR A 1. Case P- BLIC HEARING - Final Plat of Lots 3R1 and 3R2, Block 1 of tH 'Estates Addition, being a replat of Lot 3, Block 1 of the Maass Estates , ion Chris Fuller presented the case and briefed the Commissioners. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if there is a house on the property or is it gone? Chris Fuller responded the house has been removed. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff in regards to the tree replacement plan? The Development Review letter states wanting a plan for tree removal from the applicant and the applicant's response is that there would be no trees removed. Commissioner Duffy states a house could not be placed on the lot without removing some trees. Barry LeBaron replied they are allowed to remove any trees that are in Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - June 13, 2005 Page 1 of 5 the building foot print. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if the remaining trees would have drip line protection? Barry LeBaron replied correct. Commissioner Byerly opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 7:14 p.m. Commissioner Edwards made motion to approve case P-05-019. Commissioner Bartkowski seconded. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Blassinga Nay: None 2. Case Z-05-017 - PUBLIC HEARIN 3.24 of the Land Development Code r yard set-back regulations Barry LeBaron presented the case and b Commissioner Edwards questioned staff in " the Zoning Board of Adjustme. . all the surr LeBaron replied yes. Commissioner Edwards question ordinance? Barry LeB n stated t could be town ho city al . apply to the atta ~ hapter 3, Section velopment rear city having a town home 'rict for multi-family, which lstrict and this district would in regards to the Zoning Board of . attach mean? Barry LeBaron replied mmissioner Edwards questioned staff if part of t I? Barry LeBaron stated they could share re generally attached and they have a common wall C anting to preserving the possibility of having town horn wall. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff if this is covere in the code? Barry LeBaron replied yes. In the past, it appears t. re to "clean up" the language for this part of the code, but it was never d missioner Edwards stated the intentions were there to do so, but it never hap d. Commissioner Bartkowski questioned staff in regards to being able to remove the language altogether? Commissioner Edwards responded there needs to be something in the code to address the PUD regulations. Barry LeBaron replied the table regulations, for the PUDs, are related to each other in the footnotes. He stated Colleyville uses these guidelines for most PUDs and since provisions have since been made in ordinances relevant to those PUDs, the same set backs have been used, as in this table. He stated not wanting to eliminate the language altogether because there are still some PUDs in Colleyville that do not have an ordinance to set Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - June 13, 2005 Page 2 of 5 the guidelines. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff if someone were to take advantage of the 10-foot set back, could they have a roof line that extends past the building line? Barry LeBaron replied there is not a provision in regards to the roof line; we allow the roof line to extend beyond the building line by 24 inches in the rear. Commissioner Edwards questioned the roof height? Barry LeBaron replied there is not a provision to off-set the roof height. Some PUD ordinances may have., anguage stated in their particular provisions to off-set the roof height with the buil. .' . 'nes. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff about the ted change for G, she stated a 5 foot side yard set back is too small, it s 10 feet. Commissioner Edwards used Bridlewood addition as an exam I used a combination of 5 and 10 feet so that each home would ha 15 foot si d set back. Barry LeBaron replied staff does not have any' with what is requested. He stated not knowing if the new provisions create any proble ost everyone respects the 10 foot side yard set back ment. .' . . Commissioner Edwards stated those partic at have smaller side yards, those provisions are stated in th . ordinance.. eBaron concurred. Commissioner Edwards questi. nguage for the E and F as stated in the table for district reg . 0 mention something about a multi-family? Barry LeBaron' he commercial districts. Commissioner Edw ncurred,. tl-family was adjacent to a commercial buildi u alia 0 be rig p on the building, and would this cover all of ? Bar Baron replied that it allows two adjacent commercial p to buil ht up to the property line. Commissioner Edwards questl s to . t if they were right up against a multi- family, the code s eBaron replied that would be something that to rate time because that amendment is not o Commissio as being the responded yes. Commissioner Duffy stated if there are houses 5 feet from each property line yet the fire truck can only go to the street, you need some room for the firefighters to take a hose to the back of the house. What are we looking for in minimal fire protection for the back of the lot? Barry LeBaron replied the only thing that would cover the fire protection would be the building code. The fire code also has some provisions that if you have walls that are within 10 feet in residential neighborhoods, then you have to upgrade that wall to be a fire rated wall. So there are provisions that if you were to make the walls narrower than the 5 feet, those walls would have to be fire rated. ues staff in regards to fire access between the units? e fir" cess is not provided between units, it is provided there was an alley, then you could provide the fire access sure if there are any alley situations in Colleyville. estioned Commissioner Duffy if he meant the side set back sement or break between the units? Commissioner Duffy Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - June 13, 2005 Page 3 of 5 Commissioner Duffy stated there should only be a minimal of 10 feet for the side and rear set backs. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if the intentions are to go lower than 5 feet on the set back? Barry LeBaron responded no, not lowering the set back maintaining the 10 feet. Commissioner Byerly stated this is to help cover those PUDs that were passed that did not have an ordinance. Barry LeBaron replied correct, this will only be applicable to those PUDs that do not have set back provisions in an or . ,ance. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff if there is an e of a PUD that does not have its own ordinance? Chris Fuller replied Cascades at Timarron. Commissioner Edwards stated that was a concep" . ially, did they not ever add it to the plat? Chris Fuller responded they h, n the ets and bounds. Commissioner Byerly opened the public hear' There being no one wishing to speak, the Commissioner Byerly stated wanting the that if the PUD does not have an ordinan requirements set forth in this tab Commissl Commissioner Duffy stated wa set back of 5 or 10 feet and then change it. Commissioner Byerly stated wanting the ments understand what t to fol d City chang ear with a front and side yard any ordinance they need to 'oner Duffy, however, he hat future applicants will " t ap Barry eliminate past the 2' LeBaron; this p residential. Commissioner Bartkowski stated zero lot line homes are around and they may be in Colleyville someday. Barry LeBaron replied the PUD regulations are there to govern the potential for zero lot line homes. Commissioner Edwards stated to the Commissioners what needs to be decided is what the minimum side and rear yard set backs need to be, whether they are 5 foot or 10 foot, which is what needs to be decided upon. Barry LeBaron stated never having seen a table set up like this with PUD regulations being on the table. rney, Matthew Boyle what has been and however, what are approved in the ey Boyle concurred with Commissioner nother property's provisions if the said rdinance applies. e need for clarity for the ordinance and provisions for rney Boyle stated the ordinance would have to be Ivision or property. to the Commissioners to delete item G in the table to ecause the side yard is not the issue, the rear yard, to go , e issue. Commissioner Edwards concurred with Barry n was intended for garden or town homes, not for single family Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - June 13, 2005 Page 4 of 5 Respectfully Sub However, this table was relied on for establishing PUD regulations before ordinances were put in place for PUDs. Commissioner Byerly made suggestions to amend Chapter 3, Section 3.24.F, paragraphs G and J of the Land Development Code with the following amendments: 1) 10 foot side yard set back; 2) delete section G; 3) use section H; 4)10 foot rear yard as set in section J is acceptable. Commissioner Duffy made motion to approve case Z-05-Q with the amendments to delete section G and include the rewording for ite s suggested by staff. Commissioner Edwards seconded. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Bla Nay: None STAFF REPORTS Barry LeBaron thanked the Commissioners COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Duffy thanked Atto ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourn Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - June 13, 20Q5 Page 5 of 5 (C.~ Texas Colleyville Community Development Internal Memorandum DA TE: June 20,2005 MEMO TO: Planning & Zoning Commissioners MEMO FROM: Amy Shelley, Planning & Zoning Assistant I SUBJECT: May 9, 2005 minutes Upon further review of the May 9, 2005, minutes, page 7 of 11, item number 4 contains an error. John Blassingame recuses himself from the case, yet the vote reflects his vote. This was a cut and paste error on my behalf. Please amend the May 9, 2005 minutes, with the deletion of Blassingame from the vote on page 7 of 11 in item number 4. Amy Shelley Planning & Zoning Assistant 1 .~ Texas PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - May 9, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Byerly called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Thomas Dolan, Dave Dudziak, Thomas Bartkowski, Luann Edwards, John Blassingame, Denis Duffy and Jeff Byerly were present. Barry LeBaron, Chris Fuller, Amy Shelley, Robert Woods and Jeff Jones from staff were present. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Commissioner Duffy. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if case Z-05-012 was tabled as written in the minutes. Barry LeBaron replied no, the case was approved. Commissioner Duffy stated to staff, the language in case P-05-012 stated at Colleyville Boulevard and Highway 26. He stated those being the same. Barry LeBaron replied the applicant stated Longwood at Highway 26. Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the minutes of the April 25, 2005 meeting with corrections. Commissioner Duffy seconded. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None CITIZEN COMMENTS REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Case P-05-010- Minor plat for McCurry Addition on 1.155 acres out of the S.C.H. Witten Survey, located at 5500 Montclair Chris Fuller presented the case and briefed the Commissioners. Commissioner Duffy stated and questioned staff, at 5500 Montclair there is not a house, but in the briefing it states there is a house, is there an existing house? Chris Fuller responded once the application was submitted, the applicant had the option to raze the house. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - May 9, 2005 Page 1 of 11 Commissioner Byerly questioned staff if this is an existing tract that has never been platted? Chris Fuller replied correct. Commissioner Edwards made motion to approve case P-05-010. Commissioner Dolan seconded. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None 2. Case P-05-017- Preliminary plat for Meadows Creek Plaza on 10.141 acres out of the R.N. McEwing Survey, Abstract 1154, located at the 8200 block of Precinct Line Road Chris Fuller presented the case and briefed the Commissioners. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff about the perimeter street improvement fees being paid by the developer as the lots are developed or at the beginning? Barry LeBaron responded this is the preliminary plat and those fees will be paid at the time of final platting. Commissioner Duffy stated having issues with construction plans for the drainage improvements, the filing with FEMA for flood management, the filing of parkland dedication fees, the allowing of windows and doors on the back side facing the new school, time frame for construction on the phases, documents stated in developer letter to be submitted at a later time and the timing of construction for all interior roads. Barry LeBaron responded parkland dedication fees will be done at final platting and the developer has agreed, they will phase this over several phases and then pay those fees. The street improvements are done at the time those lots are will front on Lavaca Trail at the time of final platting. By having the developer plat the lot he needs to final plat first, all other improvements will come as the development constructs. Robert Woods responded about drainage stating a CLOMAR has been submitted and he is hoping to finish and give comments back to the developer at the end of the week. Robert Woods stated the impact of water has not been increased along the channel; it is to his understanding that all drainage improvements are to be done during the first phase. Commissioner Byerly commented the letter from the developer states all drainage improvements. Barry LeBaron replied correct; they plan to do all the improvements. Commissioner Blassingame questioned if the drainage will be done in a phase process? Commissioner Byerly stated the applicant needs to specify when all the drainage improvements will be made. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff if building permits will not be issued until all drainage issues are completed? Robert Woods stated correct. Barry LeBaron stated not having to be final platted for the drainage plans, they indicate wanting to do all drainage at one time to be able to reclaim the property. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - May 9, 2005 Page 2 of 11 Commissioner Byerly stated there being some confusion between the developer's letter and staffs briefings about when the drainage improvements would be completed, therefore the applicant will need to specify. Jimmie Archie, Realty Capital Corporation, the applicant briefed the Commission and presented his request and stated the channel improvements will be made during phase one for the drainage from our property. Then the two ponds would be constructed to handle the channel water, front pond during phase 1 and then the back pond during the back phase. Commissioner Byerly questioned Mr. Archie will there not be more water than what the area is currently releasing? Mr. Archie replied correct. Commissioner Edwards questioned if the channel is to hold all the water flow and not increase it to the south. Mr. Archie replied the channels are being constructed to handle the water that is currently flowing through the property and the ponds are going to be constructed to handle any other water flow that may be increased as a result in this development. This will allow us to be able to reclaim the land on either side of the channel. Commissioner Duffy questioned the applicant how was he going to connect the gap between Lavaca Trail and Emerald Park addition? Mr. Archie stated the developers to the south will want to continue the flow. Jimmie Archie responded Phase I would begin immediately upon approval. Phase II would be driven by the market possibly a year after the first phase. Commissioner Dudziak questioned applicant if the lots are going to be sold individually or speculative building. Mr. Archie stated having a potential business to lease Phase I. Commissioner Dudziak questioned if Phase I is pre-leased but there is nothing else pre-leased. Commissioner Dudziak stated this kind of project will not be an advantage to Colleyville to increase the tax revenue. Commissioner Duffy stated on the response letter to the City, comment 5, states to provide a 10 foot set back building line, is adequate, however, why did the City say the 10 foot is not legal? Mr. Archie stated not knowing where the comment came from; it was to his understanding that the building could encroach the rear building line, as long as there were no windows or doors on those sides. Chris Fuller replied, the Planned Unit Development states the set back the developers are providing is adequate provided there are no windows or doors on those sides. These comments were put there simply for the developer to address, not they were not in compliance. Commissioner Duffy stated if you have a door and you open the door, then you have encroached upon the 10 feet. What is the purpose of a door if you can't use it? Chris Fuller replied they have agreed and adequate windows and doors are allowed as long as the set back is not encroached upon. Barry LeBaron stated initially the developer just wanted to plat the one tract but because they own the whole tract, I told him the regulation states platting the whole property with a preliminary plat. They could have just done a preliminary plat with only two lots. Commercial platting is different than residential platting because in Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - May 9, 2005 Page 3 of 11 residential platting the developer knows how many lots to lie out, but it is not that way for commercial. The commercial plats are determined by the end consumer and this developer only has one end consumer. The developer has submitted a conceptual plan that shows drainage, access easements and lot configuration. Their consumers may change. At this point the developer is aware of all the drainage improvements that may be needed and they have stated they are going to address all the drainage at one time. This may help with explaining why the developer is deferring the ponds until they have customers, this plat helps the developer be aware of what may be needed and put them on notice , they could come back next week with a final plat, if they have customers. That is why commercial is more difficult than residential. Commissioner Byerly stated recognizing Commissioner Dudziak's concerns, but if this property never gets platted, it can never be developed, Commissioner Byerly made motion to approve case P-05-017. Commissioner Blassingame seconded. Commissioner Dudziak stated being concerned that this is another type of platting that will not be successful because it has not worked in the past with other properties in Colleyville. Commissioner Byerly stated this plat meets all the requirements and by law the Commission is required to approve the plat. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Edwards, Blassingame, Byerly Nay: Dudziak, Bartkowski, Duffy PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS 3. Case P-05-016- PUBLIC HEARING- Final Plat of Lots 1 Rand 2, Block 1 of the K.I.S.D. Addition, being a replat of Lot 1, Block 1 of the K.I.S.D. Addition Chris Fuller presented the case and briefed the Commissioners. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if the twin cuts for Precinct Line Road have been submitted to the State? Barry LeBaron replied they do not have a plan for those. Simply, the amount of frontage on Precinct Line Road, would qualify them for two curb cuts, which they may never need two curbs. We indicated since they do not have a specific plan, staff recommended cross access easements to the other properties. They changed the plat to put a 24 foot access easement across the entire front of the property so that where ever a curb cut came in; it would be accessible to the properties to the north and south. Staff thought this would be good because this property could be put back on the tax rolls and benefit the city instead of being exempt. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff if there will not be any entrance from Precinct Line Road? Barry LeBaron stated correct. Commissioner Edwards stated all on McDonwell School Road. Barry LeBaron stated that is why they are widening McDonwell School Road. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - May 9, 2005 Page 4 of 11 Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if the Fire Marshal stated the widening would be adequate? Barry LeBaron replied correct. Commissioner Byerly opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. There being no one wishing to speak the public hearing was closed at 7:42 p.m. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff if the city could require the school to have an entrance off of Precinct Line Road? Barry LeBaron responded when the plat was approved, they moved all entrances from McDonwell School Road so that the parents could drop off the children in front of the school. This property is a surplus for the school which can turn in to commercial property for the City. Commissioner Duffy made motion to approve case P-05-016. Commissioner Dolan seconded. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None 4. Case P-05-015 - PUBLIC HEARING- Final Plat of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 of Southwest Colleyville Office Park, being a replat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 of the Chapelwood Addition Commissioner Blassingame recused himself from this public hearing. Chris Fuller presented the case and briefed the Commissioners. Commissioner Duffy stated concerns with entrances on Cheek Sparger, the 24 foot easement on the front of the three properties, the 40 foot set back in middle of easement, mutual easements not shown but talked about, right of way (ROW) dedication, landscape in ROW easement dedication, 95 feet of ROW is shown as 91.74 and allowed, there being a hardship, yet none is shown to maintain 2 lots instead of 3, summary states the city does not enforce deed restrictions, but in the deed restrictions provided, certain facilities are not allowed. The city can not enforce that statement and for the city to accept those restrictions, the Commission can not accept what the Commission can not enforce, therefore we are being negligent to do what we are suppose to do for that property. Commissioner Edwards added for a gas station, a Special Use Permit has to be acquired, correct? Barry LeBaron replied correct. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff for clarity landscape easements are 20 foot and this indicates 10 foot? Barry LeBaron stated 20 foot required along Colleyville Boulevard. Barry LeBaron stated the hardship issue is that the developer has some commitments and the hardship can be determined by the Commission. This property has stayed vacant for some time yet this developer has some strong commitments for three lots which would benefit the city. Although the lots would not meet the zoning everything else could be met on the requirements, Barry LeBaron also stated the Commission can also defer this request to City Council. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - May 9, 2005 Page 5 of 11 Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if the tree preservation plan and aerials were submitted? Chris Fuller replied correct. Commissioner Byerly opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Derek Deguire, 3000 Spring Valley Dr. Bedford, the applicant, stated the request and briefed the Commission. The deed restrictions are for the property owners and to further assure the client the use of the properties. Mr. Deguire stated wanting to put in a quality office facility with lots of landscaping which would fit the area nicely. Commissioner Byerly questioned Mr. Deguire why he went for straight zoning instead of Planned Unit Development Commercial; the deed restrictions could be enforced? Mr. Deguire replied because of timing and the practicality, basically we will end up with the same product. The deed restrictions are there because the market for that area will not permit some of those particular uses that this zoning allows. James Polk, 3913 Treemont Circle, spoke in favor of the developer deed restricting the property because of the concerns with what could go on that property. By deed restricting, it will be a good thing for the neighbors to know that those businesses will not be allowed. There being no one wishing to speak the public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Dudziak questioned staff based on the language on minimum lot size can we authorize a replat including a waiver submitted by the developer? Commissioner Dudziak stated not seeing any waiver. Barry LeBaron if the Commission approves the plat as submitted, there is a waiver. Commissioner Dudziak questioned staff the developer does not have to request a waiver? Barry LeBaron stated they have submitted the plat. Matthew Boyle, City Attorney stated the applicant has submitted the application for variance or hardship. Barry LeBaron stated the application indicates the applicant is requesting a waiver for the minimum lot widths. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if the Commission approves the plat, that is in fact a granting of a waiver? Mr. Boyle replied the plat as submitted would be a modified version of the waiver. Commissioner Bartkowski questioned staff about there not being a 24-foot wide fire easement achieved on the east side of the property bound? Commissioner Bartkowski stated only seeing 9 feet. Commissioner Duffy states it being a mutual access easement, but it is not shown on drawing. Commissioner Bartkowski stated not shown as 24-foot wide on plat only 9 foot. Commissioner Duffy replied would have to show on the other east property, Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if it is required to have the owners on the east show the easement? Barry LeBaron stated it being shown on the east property plat. Commissioner Edwards stated this type of development is good for the area. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - May 9, 2005 Page 6 of 11 , Commissioner Edwards made motion to approve case P-05-015. Commissioner Dudziak seconded. The motion to approve was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None 5. Case Z-05-014- PUBLIC HEARING- Special Use Permit for an accessory building on Lot 12, Block 1, Arbor Estates Addition, located at 2406 Poplar Court East Chris Fuller presented the case and briefed the Commissioners. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff about the 676 square feet being permitted by the code for an accessory building however, in the proposed ordinance 1750 square feet is stated. What is the square footage of this building and what is the upstairs going to be used for? Chris Fuller replied the 1750 square footage is the maximum size allowed for a lot size of this size. Commissioner Duffy questioned if the 676 square feet is the ground garage space only? Chris Fuller replied correct, you will have to ask the applicant how the loft will be used. Commissioner Duffy stated to our knowledge the neighbors agreed to a two car garage, not a two story building. Barry LeBaron stated the 1750 square feet being the upper limit allowed, the Commission may limit in the ordinance to reflect the actual size of the building being proposed, Commissioner Byerly opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Andrea and Greg Regula, 2406 Poplar Court East, the applicant, came forward to present their request and stated having discussions with the neighbors about the structure being a two story building. The Regulas submitted an email of approval from their Homeowner's Association (HOA). Commissioner Bartkowski questioned the applicant if the tree is worth a smaller garage. Mr. Regula stated the size of the garage is to accommodate the size of his truck and boat. Commissioner Byerly questioned the applicant for clarity if in the ordinance, 676 square feet was stated instead of 1750 square feet. Mr. Regula replied fine. Commissioner Dolan questioned the applicant if he will pour 676 square feet of concrete for a pad? Mr. Regula replied correct. Theresa Vella, 2405 Poplar Court, stated concerns with the use of the building and not seeing any approval by the HOA. Liza Slosson, 2407 Poplar Court, stated concerns with the uses of the building, if it would be seen from the street, if the wooden fence would stay or if a chain link fence would be placed, if the RV would be stored in the building, if the tree would stay, if bricked like current home and the time frame the building would be completed. Commissioner Byerly questioned where Mrs. Slosson lived? Mrs. Slosson stated to Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - May 9, 2005 Page 7 of 11 the right of the Regula's property. Robert Crane, 2302 Arbor Trail, concerned with the building and the use of the building. I was not allowed to build an addition on my property because of the covenants. Stated having concerns with property values and the covenants state 80% of the structure would have to be bricked. Beverly Sweat, 2403 Poplar Court, stated wanting the definition of Special Use Permit and if it would just be for the building and stated not being allowed to build an accessory building in her yard because of the covenants. There being no one wishing to speak the public hearing was closed at 8:25 p.m. Commissioner Byerly questioned the applicant if they object to limit the uses of storage only above the garage. Mr. Regula replied fine. Mr. Regula stated a detached building does not have to be bricked and we intend to make it match the house as much as possible. This building has been approved by the Committee of Arbor Estates. Commissioner Edwards questioned applicant if the fence would stay? Mr. Regula replied correct. Commissioner Byerly questioned the applicant if the neighbor on the 10 foot side is Mr. Edens who signed the petition? Mr. Regula replied correct. Commissioner Dudziak stated one neighbor is stating 80% is required to be bricked, however you, the applicant are stating not required. Mr. Regula stated brick is what the main structure has to be, not the detached garage. Commissioner Edwards stated the Commission could make the approval of the SUP pending the approval of the HOA. Mr. Boyle stated being better to require the brick as part of the SUP because that is what the Commission wants not what the HOA wants. Commissioner Duffy questioned the applicant about the construction schedule. Mr. Regula replied 30 days. Commissioner Byerly questioned the applicant how Mrs. Slosson could see the structure from her property. Mr. Regula stated she could only see the structure if she were to stand in the driveway. Mr. Regula stated his home would screen the structure, Commissioner Byerly questioned the applicant if they have a shared driveway? Mrs. Regula stated there being a strip between the Eden's driveway, theirs going to the left and the Regula's going to the right. Commissioner Byerly stated limiting to 700 square feet and the construction materials. Commissioner Duffy questioned Commissioner Byerly if the Commission should approve with changes or have the staff to rewrite? Commissioner Byerly stated approving the changes in the ordinance. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - May 9, 2005 Page 8 of 11 Commissioner Edwards reminded the Commissioners that the applicants according, to code, are allowed to build this building, but because of the loft area, they have to get the SUP for the height of the building. Commissioner Edwards stating wanting to move the square footage to 700 or 750 because once they start to construct, they may need more square footage, it would allow for leeway. Commissioner Dolan questioned staff for clarity; the HOA has approved the two story building? Commissioner Edwards replied correct, the city is the one that has the issue because of the height of the building the applicants are having to move the structure in from the allowed set back and the applicant wants to keep the building were they have placed it to save the tree. Commissioner Byerly stated generally the additional set back is for privacy, and in this case for storage there is not a privacy issue. Barry LeBaron stated the regulations are for accessory buildings within a certain size, however to exceed the size or height, a SUP would be required to alert the neighbors, and restrictions could be put in place prohibiting possible commercial uses. The higher the structure the farther off the set back line the structure has to be placed. Commissioner Bartkowski stated approving and granting an office as a greater hardship than for storage. Commissioner Edwards stated the Commission is not granting for hardship. She stated looking at opposition from the neighbors, not because of a hardship. Commissioner Bartkowski stated the storage height does not need to be so tall as it would need to be for an office. Commissioner Byerly stated restricting 700 square feet and construction materials are not an issue as long as the HOA is approving the materials. Commissioner Dudziak stated the neighbors would be comfortable if the office is restricted in the Special Use Permit ordinance. Commissioner Duffy stated in the draft ordinance no commercial purpose use. Commissioner Byerly stated we traditionally do not go through the ordinance, usually staff drafts the ordinance. Commissioner Edwards questioned Mrs. Slosson if she has concerns about the exterior of the building. Mrs. Slosson stated wanting the look of the structure to feel like the rest of the neighborhood and that the building is not visible by the street. Commissioner Byerly stated the HOA requirements are more comprehensive than the city's requirements and therefore there are not additional requirements by the city for the construction materials for the building. Commissioner Byerly made motion to approve case Z-05-014 with the conditions a) limiting the building to 700 square feet and b) with no commercial use. Commissioner Dolan seconded. The motion to approve by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Edwards, Blassingame, Byerly Nay: Dudziak, Bartkowski, Duffy Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - May 9, 2005 Page 9 of 11 6. Case Z-05-015 - PUBLIC HEARING- Amendment to the Planned Unit Development ordinance for the Beldon Hollow Addition, located at the 2000 block of Glade Road Barry LeBaron presented the case and briefed the Commissioners. Commissioner Edwards questioned why the City Council approved with the 16 lots in a gated community and not the required amount. Commissioner Byerly questioned the amount of lots required in a gated community? Barry LeBaron stated 20 lots are required, however later City Council approved a minimum lots of 25. Barry LeBaron stated the Commission is simply changing just that one statement on the lot number. Commissioner Edwards questioned if these two lots would have to be made in to one lot to be able to build. Barry replied correct. Commissioner Byerly opened the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. Tom Slone, 4705 Shady Creek, the owner of Lot 10, presented his request and briefed the Commission. Mr. Slone stated wanting to be able to preserve the trees we want to move the home over, therefore that is why we are having to buy the lot beside Lot 10. There being no one wishing to speak the public hearing was closed at 8:51 p.m. Commissioner Duffy made motion to approve case Z-05-015. Commissioner Bartkowski seconded. The motion to approve by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None TABLED ITEMS 7. Case G-05-008- PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to Chapter 3, Section 3.23 of the Land Development Code regarding Planned Unit Development Zoning Regulations Tabled 04-25-05 Commissioner Bartkowski made motion to remove this item from the table. Commissioner Duffy seconded. The motion to approve by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None Barry LeBaron presented the case and briefed the Commissioners. Commissioner Duffy made motion to approve case G-05-008. Commissioner Dudziak seconded. The motion to approve by the following vote: Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - May 9, 2005 Page 10 of 11 Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None STAFF REPORTS Barry LeBaron stated having a workshop on May 16, 2005. Commissioners Blassingame and Dudziak stated being out of town on that date. Staff recommended having the workshop before the next Planning and Zoning meeting scheduled for May 23, 2005. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioners Byerly and Duffy made comments to staff in regards to doing a good job on the Planned Unit Development amendments. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. by acclamation. Respectfully Submitted, Amy Shelley Planning and Zoning Assistant Approved on: May 23,2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - May 9, 2005 Page 11 of 11 city Of ccencs PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA BRIEFING l"exas Meeting Date: June 27, 2005 I Prepared by: I Chris Fuller Develooment Coordinator Subject: Z-05-018 - PUBLIC HEARING - Special Use Permit for a carport on Lot 4, Block 1, Community Home Addition, located at 1508 Cherry Lane Staff Review Comments Request. Special Use Permit (SUP) for a carport Proposed Use. The applicant has submitted a request to permit an existing attached carport on the property. The applicant constructed the carport without a permit and is requesting approval of the SUP to allow the carport to remain in place. However, the carport deviates from several development regulations stated within the Land Development Code, as discussed in the Development Analysis portion of this agenda briefing. To comply with the carport regulations, the owner would be required to dismantle and reconstruct the existing carport. The property owner has applied for a SUP to permit the carport as constructed. Existing Conditions. The property is currently used for single family residential purposes. The property contains an existing house and the carport. The property is located within a R40 Single-family residential zoning district. Location. This is a 0.92-acre parcel of property located at 1508 Cherry Lane. Platting. The property is platted. Adjacent Zoning and Development. The surrounding properties consist of single family residential zoning designations, The properties on all sides are zoned R-20 and are developed as single family residences. Development Analysis. The Land Development Code requires that carports be considered on a case-by-case basis, and must be approved by a SUP. A comparison of the regulations and the proposed carport is shown below. CARPORT ZONING COMPARISON Category Zoning ReQuirement ADDlicant Proposal 1, Maximum Size 480 square feet 600 SQuare feet 2. Longest Dimension Allowed 24 feet 30 feet 3. Maximum Height 15 ft. to highest point of roof 8 feet 3 inches 4, Side Setback 15 feet 6 feet 5. Maximum Number per Lot 1 1 6. Paved Parking Surface Concrete, asphalt or pavestone Concrete 7. Roof Pitch 2:12 minimum Less than 2:12 8, Construction of Posts brick, stone or decorative metal 4 inch steel supports between 12" and 48" in width The items indicated with bold, italicized characters do not conform with the carport regulations. The size of the carport exceeds the maximum size regulations. The Land Development Code permits carports up to 480 square feet. The existing carport is approximately 600 square feet, which exceeds the maximum size requirement by 120 square feet. Similarly, the Land Development Code regulates the length of carport material dimensions. The longest dimension allowed for a carport is 24 feet. The longest dimension of the existing carport is 30 feet, exceeding the regulation by six (6) feet. The existing carport encroaches upon the side yard setback that is required by the zoning district. The Land Development Code states that carports located within ten (10) feet of the principal building shall comply with the front, side and rear yard setbacks of the zoning district. The R40 zoning district requires a 15 foot side yard setback. The existing carport encroaches approximately nine (9) feet into the 15 foot side yard setback. The post supports do not meet the minimum size standards required by the regulations. The Land Development Code states the dimension of each post as viewed from each primary elevation shall not be less than twelve (12) inches. The posts of the existing carport are four (4) inches. The Land Development Code requires a pitched roof of at least 2:12. The existing carport does not meet this requirement. Public Notification. Staff mailed notices to 11 adjacent property owners regarding this request. Notice was published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram as required by state law and the Land Development Code. No correspondence has been received regarding this request. Public Hearing Schedule. Planning & Zoning Commission: June 27, 2005 City Council: July 12 and July 19, 2005 Summary Though the carport constructed by the applicant deviates from the development standards put forth by the Land Development Code, the carport is aesthetically similar to existing carports in the neighborhood and along adjacent streets. Since the SUP for this particular use has little impact on land use decisions or requirements, but may be important to those living nearby, staff believes the opinions of the area property owners should be the most important factor in the decision to grant the SUP or not. Since the request is a SUP, the Commission may establish conditions different than or in addition to the normal requirements of the Land Development Code. Agenda Item No.2 - Page 2 Recommendation Denial due to technical non-compliance with the Land Development Code. Attachments · Location Map . Information and Drawings from Applicant · Draft Ordinance Agenda Item No.2 - Page 3 Location Map Agenda Item No.2 - Page 4 Information and Drawings from Applicant Agenda Item No.2 - Page 5 Agenda Item No.2 - Page 6 Agenda Item No.2 - Page 7 ,-..-----------^'.... .-..................-._.-~-~^~.. '\ t... Agenda Item No.2 - Page 8 ~\,...\- ~"\e-ec- ~~'"LA~ \N ~ ~~~~.tl, ~~.....,....erQ) ~f K.)\""Pr ~~,.. W~\~6 :S~Al'l\1i'- \<..o~ Dtr<:..f<.,,: 2(".~.4. -.+-'''C-T'DtL.'( ~D.4.r ~.'~;~~ _~"'"",.<<'\""', C2.....4.........~.S" ..f;a.\,~" ~ v "-"'e1L ~'t'5:>~'. u.;..)'t~t~iOI)u.:>N~U'r'~- :e-4> \l,~: ",".1 "') II ~ ..., {- ~ Cf-\c.. s.eli1_ ~...\U~ 4\\ ~4" ~1"eel..." .... V-~~e.. #oj ~........ 'lit.- ~ I'It '\ i: ~ \.... 'T~ "' If) (;:NC. n.e.,-...1)IZ..\ v':: -5->~O 'J;>S\ C <<> tJc...V'~""e ~~ 't.~~^~ \~<< D.<:". c. \J.,j. 4eM"~ '~~~'. \ b" "i., z.. t{.. ., Agenda Item No.2 - Page 9 DRAFT ORDINANCE ORDINANCE 0-05-xxxx AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS, BY AUTHORIZING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A CARPORT ON LOT 4, BLOCK 1, COMMUNITY HOME ADDITION; PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, an application for a Special Use Permit was filed by Jesse Cobb on May 27, 2005, under Case No. Z-05-018; and WHEREAS, the City of Colleyville has complied with the notification requirements of the Texas Local Government Code and the Colleyville Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation on the proposed zoning amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed zoning amendment is in the best interests of the City of Colleyville; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Colleyville and the City of Colleyville City Council, in compliance with the Charter of the City of Colleyville, and State Law with reference to changes to zoning classifications under the Zoning Ordinance Regulations and Zoning Map, having given the requisite notices by publication and otherwise, and after holding due hearings and affording a full and fair hearing to all the property owners generally, and to the persons interested and situated in the affected area and in the vicinity thereof, the governing body of the City of Colleyville is of the opinion that said change in zoning should be made. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1. THAT all matters stated hereinabove are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if copied in their entirety. THAT the Master Plan, the Land Development Code of the City of Colleyville, Texas, and the accompanying Zoning Map (Exhibit "A") are hereby amended insofar as they relate to certain land located in Colleyville, Texas, described as Lot 4, Block 1, Community Home Addition, (1508 Cherry Lane), by authorizing a Special Use Permit for a Carport, as shown in Exhibit "B". Sec. 2. Sec. 3. THAT any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of this Ordinance 0-05-xxxx Page 2 of 2 Sec. 6. ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined a sum not to exceed Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). Each and every day such violation continues shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such. THAT except as amended by this ordinance, the Land Development Code of the City of Colleyville, Texas, shall remain in full force and effect. THAT the City Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to cause publication of the descriptive caption and penalty clause hereof as an alternative method of publication provided by law. THAT this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon publication. Sec. 4. Sec. 5, AND IT IS SO ORDERED. The first reading and public hearing being conducted on the 2005. day of The second reading and public hearing being conducted on the 2005. day of ATTEST: CITY OF COLLEYVILLE Cynthia Singleton, TRMC City Secretary David Kelly Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Matthew C.G. Boyle City Attorney EXHIBIT A - ZONING MAP EXHIBIT B - SITE PLAN Go'uw ,,~O, (:'''id: ... f...... j\". .,~p,_ l""~ 8""".... ?>O' 00'" ~ ." 5U&O''fdl()t.4 o~ y \4 'l. ";.0' __r...~..~.. t.. <':' 1 A ""_"'1"'-""'" u o CJ If,) C" _V,\ \-0 "1 .. ;:; '" o {) ,C" .. r ""'410.... r:o"f:>Oi. "".. 'J;oc.ot. ~J .!eiL__... .. .. .. _.. ~ .. ..-.. () to lJ n 1 Site of Carport ..,. ..... 'b 'I.. (.. ---"........ '.....(1 --......,.., t., e~Rp., "'-{ A " €. N LIE.. Go 0' tt,OW 8 ti Al C" t ul () o o rll .. u () 1fl ~"d.S~ l \.......5 Q.PJ.~'tit' '1~!:t'''''''' l...~..., f..1"