Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Minutes-6/13/2005 cc.~ 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 Thomas Dolan, Dave Dudziak, Thomas Bartkowski, Luann Edwards, John Blassingame, Denis Duffy and Jeff Byerly were present. Barry LeBaron, Chris Fuller and Amy Shelley from staff were present. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Commissioner Duffy. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the minutes of the May 23, 2005 meeting with corrections as follows: 1) page 2, to add the word "is" in front of being in the seventh paragraph; 2) page 3, add "the City Engineer confirmed the plans had been submitted" to the first paragraph; and 3) change "owner's" to "owners" in the third paragraph. 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-05-019 - PUBLIC HEARING - Final Plat of Lots 3R1 and 3R2, Block 1 of the Maass Estates Addition, being a replat of Lot 3, Block 1 of the Maass Estates Addition 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, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None 2. Case Z-05-017 - PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to Chapter 3, Section 3.24 of the Land Development Code regarding Planned Unit Development rear yard set-back regulations Barry LeBaron presented the case and briefed the Commissioners. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff in regards to the public hearing heard by the Zoning Board of Adjustment, if all the surrounding lots are zoned PUD? Barry LeBaron replied yes. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff in regards to the city having a town home ordinance? Barry LeBaron stated the city has a zoning district for multi-family, which could be town homes. The city also has a duplex district and this district would apply to the attached units. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff in regards to the Zoning Board of Adjustment case, what in that case does attach mean? Barry LeBaron replied attach means they share a common wall. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff if they share the whole wall or part of the wall? Barry LeBaron stated they could share the whole wall, but they are generally attached and they have a common wall somewhere between the two. Commissioner Edwards stated wanting to preserving the possibility of having town homes with a common wall. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff if this is covered some where else in the code? Barry LeBaron replied yes. In the past, it appears the intentions were to "clean up" the language for this part of the code, but it was never done. Commissioner Edwards stated the intentions were there to do so, but it never happened. 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 1 a-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 language stated in their particular provisions to off-set the roof height with the building lines. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff about the suggested change for G, she stated a 5 foot side yard set back is too small, it should be 1 a feet. Commissioner Edwards used Bridlewood addition as an example stating they used a combination of 5 and 1 a feet so that each home would have a 15 foot side yard set back. Barry LeBaron replied staff does not have any issue with what is being requested. He stated not knowing if the new provisions would create any problems; most everyone respects the 1 a foot side yard set back requirement. Commissioner Edwards stated those particular PUDs that have smaller side yards, those provisions are stated in their ordinance. Barry LeBaron concurred. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff about the language for the E and F as stated in the table for district regulations? Does F need to mention something about a multi-family? Barry LeBaron replied those are for the commercial districts. Commissioner Edwards concurred, but what if a multi-family was adjacent to a commercial building, would you allow them to be right up on the building, and would this cover all of our possibilities? Barry LeBaron replied that it allows two adjacent commercial properties to be able to build right up to the property line. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff in regards to what if they were right up against a multi- family, the code states single family. Barry LeBaron replied that would be something that would have to be amended at a separate time because that amendment is not on the table for tonight's discussion. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff in regards to fire access between the units? Barry LeBaron replied the fire access is not provided between units, it is provided from the public street. If there was an alley, then you could provide the fire access through the alley, but not sure if there are any alley situations in Colleyville. Commissioner Byerly questioned Commissioner Duffy if he meant the side set back as being the fire easement or break between the units? Commissioner Duffy 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 1 a 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. 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 ordinance. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff if there is an example of a PUD that does not have its own ordinance? Chris Fuller replied the Cascades at Timarron. Commissioner Edwards stated that was a concept plan initially, did they not ever add it to the plat? Chris Fuller responded they had it on their meets and bounds. Commissioner Byerly opened the public hearing at 7:35 pm. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 7:35 pm. Commissioner Byerly stated wanting the language to be cleaned up to clearly state that if the PUD does not have an ordinance then it will have to follow the set back requirements set forth in this table. Commissioner Edwards concurred. Commissioner Duffy stated wanting the table to be clear with a front and side yard set back of 5 or 10 feet and then the council can change any ordinance they need to change it. Commissioner Byerly concurred with Commissioner Duffy, however, he stated wanting the amendments to be really clear so that future applicants will understand what they will need to follow. Commissioner Duffy questioned City Attorney, Matthew Boyle what has been approved in the past can not be changed, and however, what are approved in the table will be the guidelines to follow? Attorney Boyle concurred with Commissioner Byerly in that one property can not use another property's provisions if the said property is not in the subdivision that the ordinance applies. Commissioner Byerly stated the need for clarity for the ordinance and provisions for the set back requirements. Attorney Boyle stated the ordinance would have to be applicable to that particular subdivision or property. Barry LeBaron suggested to the Commissioners to delete item G in the table to eliminate the confusion, because the side yard is not the issue, the rear yard, to go past the 25 feet, is the issue. Commissioner Edwards concurred with Barry LeBaron; this provision was intended for garden or town homes, not for single family 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. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - June 13, 2005 Page 4 of 5 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-05-017 with the amendments to delete section G and include the rewording for item J as suggested by staff. Commissioner Edwards seconded. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None STAFF REPORTS Barry LeBaron thanked the Commissioners for coming to the work session. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Duffy thanked Attorney Boyle for the work session. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. by acclamation. Respectfully Submitted, Amy Shelley Planning and Zoning Assistant Approved on: June 27,2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - June 13, 2005 Page 5 of 5