Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Minutes-11/28/2005 .~ Texas PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 12, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Byerly called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION Present: Commissioners, Dave Dudziak, Thomas Bartkowski, Luann Edwards, John Blassingame, Denis Duffy and Jeff Byerly Absent: Commissioner Tom Dolan Barry LeBaron, Chris Fuller, Amy Shelley and Robert Woods from staff were present. The invocation was given by Commissioner Blassingame. ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the August 22, 2005 meeting minutes as written. Commissioner Duffy seconded. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None CITIZEN COMMENTS REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Case P-05-028 - Final plat for Lot 3, Block 1 Meadows Creek Plaza Addition on 1.336 acres located at 8190 Precinct Line Road Chris Fuller presented the case and briefed the Commissioners. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff in regards to page 5 of the Development Review Comments, comment #1, why is the platting process not complete regarding the easements? Barry LeBaron replied once the plat is approved, the applicant will file the easement documents with the County and those filing numbers are placed on the plat for reference to those easements. The applicant did not want to file the easement documents if the Commission had problems with the plat. Commissioner Edwards stated this is an off-site easement. What if the applicant does not have it? Barry LeBaron replied the applicant has provided those documents to the engineering department. Commissioner Duffy questioned Robert Woods, City of Colleyville Engineer, if the final Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 12, 2005 Page 1 of 12 easement documents have been approved? Robert Woods replied yes, we have the final easement papers and once the plat has been approved those documents will be signed. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if the platting process is complete? Barry LeBaron replied yes, they have supplied us with the documents. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff if the documents have or have not been signed? Robert Woods replied the documents are not signed. As soon as the plat is approved the applicant will submit the signed documents. He stated before construction, those documents will be filed as done in the past. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff in regards to not having the easement yet? Robert Woods replied correct. Commissioner Edwards stated there being problems in the past with off-site easements. The Commission needs to know that whoever is giving the off-site easement has already signed the document. An unsigned document does not guarantee anything. Fred Ballinger with FDB Architects, representing R&P, the owner of the said property, stated the developer, Realty Capital, will be providing the easement documents, without the easement we would not be able to develop our lot and Realty Capital could not develop their project. Commissioner Edwards questioned Mr. Ballinger if the easement is coming from the owner of the whole property? Mr. Ballinger replied correct. Commissioner Duffy stated the Commission needs to be consistent and follow the rules and procedures of the final plat procedure. Mr. Ballinger stated Realty Capital has reviewed the easement and has agreed, they just have not signed the easement documents. Commissioner Duffy questioned Mr. Ballinger if there is a reason why the documents have not been signed? Mr. Ballinger replied it being the final part of the process, why bother if the plat is not approved. Commissioner Duffy stated the Land Development Code states what needs to be in place before the final plat is approved and this is something that needs to be in place. He stated it being a lack of Mr. Ballinger's staff support for those documents not to be in place. Somebody could have gone to Realty Capital and acquired the signature before coming to the Commission for a final plat approval. Mr. Ballinger relied being sorry for them not signing the document. He thought Realty Capital was on top of what needed to be done and asked the Commission if the final plat could be approved on the condition of the easement documents being signed. Commissioner Duffy questioned City Attorney Michael Kallas if approval of the plat would be legal? Attorney Kallas replied the plat could be approved with the condition. Commissioner Dudziak stated the Commission is here to develop some consistency as to what is approved; there is another applicant here tonight that we have asked to bring a completed plat back, with other issues to be resolved, before we would approve it. Whether or not the Commission tables this case tonight, which is what he Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 12, 2005 Page 2 of 12 recommended, so that all the signatures could be in place, the Commission should stick with the precedent that all work is done before it comes before the Commission. Mr. Ballinger concurred with Commissioner Dudziak; we have certain things in motion and would appreciate some understanding. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff if the easement documents have been reviewed? Robert Woods replied correct. Commissioner Edwards questioned Robert Woods if the easement documents have been discussed with Realty Capital or just Mr. Ballinger? Robert Woods replied Jimmy Archie with Realty Capital presented the documents to staff. Commissioner Byerly questioned Robert Woods if staff had asked Mr. Archie to sign the documents? Robert Woods replied no, typical policy is that once the final plat is approved, the plat and the easement documents would be filed at the same time. Commissioner Byerly stated understanding the recording process, but questioned if the documents have been executed? Robert Woods replied the documents need the surveyor's signature. Barry LeBaron stated not uncommon to have easement documents not signed until the plat is approved. Staff has not found this to be a particular problem with easements. Commissioner Byerly stated not having issues with approving the plat with the conditions upon the easement documents being signed exactly as it is right now with staff's approval. Commissioner Dudziak disagreed with Commissioner Byerly, to be consistent; the documents need to be in place and all of the loose ends need to be tied up. Attorney Kallas questioned staff if the case is continued, would the plat be approved by default if not approved in 30 days? Barry LeBaron stated without a decision, the clock has not started yet. Mr. Ballinger stated to staff there was not a reference on the Review comments stating those signatures would need to be in place before the plat could be approved. We thought this was the city's standard procedure and acted accordingly. He stated the potential owner was planning to close on the property this week and this would hamper the closing. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff if this is standard procedure for easements? Barry LeBaron replied without those documents in place, the property owner would not be able to start construction. Therefore, whether they are signed now or signed after the plat is approved; the developer would not be able to get a building permit until all the infrastructure was in place. Commissioner Edwards stated these easement documents are for the protection of the buyer. Technically Realty Capital, which knows the process, could change their mind and charge the developer more or not agree with the easement. Therefore, this plat is not complete without those easement documents in place. Commissioner Blassingame stated staff has put before us what they thought was complete. He stated on issues like this, it would not make sense to hold this up Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 12, 2005 Page 3 of 12 because of precedence the Commission has set forth in the past. Mr. Ballinger stated the potential owner would not have purchased the property without the easements being signed over from Realty Capital. Commissioner Duffy questioned Mr. Ballinger in regards to how is the property owner going to sign off on an unsigned document? How will the buyer buy the property if Realty Capital has not signed it off? Mr. Ballinger replied it being contingent on the development of the lot, which can not happen without the easement. Commissioner Edwards questioned Mr. Ballinger if it would be a huge problem if the Commission were to table this item, then you could return in two weeks with the easement documents signed? Mr. Ballinger replied two weeks would be a hurdle for the potential owner, Mr. Richard Parker. Richard Parker, the potential owner of the property, came forth and stated the two week delay would be a financial hardship. Commissioner Duffy questioned Mr. Parker in regards to closing on the property; you will close on the property without the easement being signed? Mr. Parker replied he felt there would be no reason to believe Realty Capital would not sign the document. Commissioner Duffy questioned Mr. Parker if he would be able to close on the property without those documents? Mr. Ballinger stated they would get those signatures tomorrow and then Mr. Parker will close on the property on Wednesday, September 14, 2005. Commissioner Blassingame questioned Mr. Ballinger if staff requested not getting the signatures until the plat was approved? Mr. Ballinger stated the comments did not suggest getting signatures before or after the plat is approved. Commissioner Edwards made motion to approve case P-05-028 with the condition the easement be signed and executed by the grantor in the exact form that has been reviewed and signed off by staff. Commissioner Bartkowski seconded. Commissioner Duffy questioned if staff could itemize every thing that has been mentioned so that when the new documents are submitted, those items will have been checked. Barry LeBaron replied yes and Robert Wood concurred. Commissioner Edwards suggested to staff on letting the Commission know if the easement goes through. Commissioner Duffy questioned Attorney Kallas, if anything is changed, would the plat have to go back through for a vote? Attorney Kallas replied correct, it could then be denied. Commissioner Dudziak questioned if the ordinances would govern any changes made. Commissioner Byerly stated the conditions on the plat would govern the execution. Barry LeBaron stated the plat would then be on the following agenda. Commissioner Dudziak stated by voting in favor of this final plat, the Commission would not be consistent. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Bartkowski, Edwards, Blassingame and Byerly Nay: Dudziak, Duffy Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 12, 2005 Page 4 of 12 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS 2. Case P-05-035 - PUBLIC HEARING - Replat of 1.34 acres on Lot 48R, Block 4 of the Western Trails Addition, located at 607 Frontier Court Chris Fuller presented the discussion and briefed the Commissioners. Commissioner Bartkowski questioned staff if a Homeowner's Association (HOA) exists and is this lot an existing lot? Chris Fuller replied there not being an HOA and it is an existing lot. Barry LeBaron concurred. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff in regards to when the lot was re-platted in 1999; does the frontage on Frontier have anything to do with the other entrance being accepted? Barry LeBaron replied not knowing what the rational was at that time. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff in regards to the new lot that would be created, would that lot be buildable as steep as it is? Barry LeBaron replied yes. Commissioner Bartkowski questioned staff if the access would be from Frontier? Barry LeBaron replied yes, the new lot would have frontage from Frontier. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff in regards to the dimensions for the new lot? Chris Fuller replied 191 feet by 125.2 feet in depth. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if Lot 48R2 has the proper frontage on the road? Barry LeBaron stated as approved it would not, just enough to accommodate the driveway. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if tree preservation arrangements have been made for Lot 48R1? Barry LeBaron replied the tree preservation ordinance would govern those trees. All of the trees in the building foot print and utility easements would be exempt. Commissioner Duffy questioned how the applicant would be made aware of that information so that he would not come in and bulldoze those beautiful trees. Barry LeBaron replied at the time of the building permit process. Commissioner Edwards stated technically the trees could be bulldozed, but he would have to replace them. Barry LeBaron concurred. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff in regards to staff's comments on the creation of the flag lot appearance and why the Commission should not be concerned about it? Barry LeBaron replied staff having issues with creating flag lots when another house is being built behind an existing house. This flag lot was created for the homeowner's driveway and for that reason only. Commissioner Byerly opened the public hearing at 7:42 pm. Pedram Pahlavan, the applicant, came forth to present the request and answer any questions. Commissioner Byerly questioned Mr. Pahlavan if the existing home would stay? Mr. Pahlavan replied yes. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 7:44 p.m. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 12, 2005 Page 5 of 12 Commissioner Duffy questioned Attorney Kallas if any contingencies could be put on the plat? Attorney Kallas replied conditions can be put on a plat. Commissioner Duffy stated putting a condition on the plat that the owner is made aware of the tree preservation regulations. Commissioner Duffy made motion to approve case P-05-035 with the condition of notifying the applicant of the tree preservation regulations. Commissioner Dudziak seconded. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dudziak, Bartkowski, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: Edwards 3. Case Z-05-024 - PUBLIC HEARING - Zoning change from CN Neighborhood Commercial to R20 Single Family Residential on 1.31 acres located at 413 Timberline Drive South Chris Fuller presented the case and briefed the Commissioners. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff in regards to how many homes the applicant plans to put on the lot? Chris Fuller replied directing that question to the owner. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if the applicant is the owner? Chris Fuller replied the applicant is representing the owner and a letter is on file from the owner stating Dino Idoski permission to represent him. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff even though this is a zoning case, is there a preliminary layout of the lots that will be proposed? Barry LeBaron replied often times staff will receive a layout, but it is not required in straight zoning. Commissioner Bartkowski questioned staff if residential zoning would fit in with the characteristics of this area? Barry LeBaron replied yes. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff in regards to the frontage on Timberline Drive and Bransford Road? Barry LeBaron replied about 280 feet on Timberline Drive and about 200 or so down Bransford Road. Commissioner Duffy stated the minimum frontage would have to conform to the R20 zoning. Barry LeBaron concurred. Commissioner Duffy stated there could not be 3 houses fronting either street. Barry LeBaron concurred. Commissioner Duffy stated to the Commission that all the lots facing Timberline Drive South are predominately in the R40 zoning district. Therefore, he stated wanting the Commissioners to give some thought as to R40 zoning for this lot. Barry LeBaron suggested getting the applicant's approval for the R40 zoning. Commissioner Byerly opened the public hearing at 7:50 pm. Dino Idoski, the applicant, came forth to present the request and answer any questions. Commissioner Byerly questioned Mr. Idoski if the lot with the short frontage would face Bransford Road? Mr. Idoski replied Timberline Drive and provided a drawing on the projector. Commissioner Byerly stated reading the plat with 3 lots on Timberline. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 12, 2005 Page 6 of 12 Commissioner Edwards stated one of the lots does not meet the frontage requirements. Mr. Idoski stated one lot is short 20 feet of frontage. If we face 2 lots facing Bransford one lot facing Timberline, we can meet the frontage requirements. Commissioner Duffy questioned Mr. Idoski if he has considered the R30 or R40 zoning? Mr. Idoski replied we did, if not approved at R20; we would still purchase the lots at the R30 zoning because we want to build the homes for ourselves. But, we would prefer the R20 zoning. Kathy Hadley, 204 Timberline North, spoke in opposition to the R20 zoning and stated R40 zoning would be more appealing for the Highland Acres area. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff in regards to the public hearing notices being sent to Switzerland, Utah and New Mexico, no one heard from any of those people? What about the local agency for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no one heard from anyone there? Barry LeBaron replied correct, the addresses from the tax rolls are used to send out the public hearing notices. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff in regards to the ownership of this property, is there something on file? Chris Fuller replied yes, there is a letter on file from the property owners granting Dino Idoski consent to apply for the rezoning on his behalf. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff in regards to if a rezoning sign was placed on the property? Chris Fuller replied correct, the sign was placed at the same time the public hearing notices were mailed. Commissioner Edwards stated the R30 zoning would work better in this area not R20 and the applicant has agreed to that even though he would prefer R20. R30 zoning is better than the CN Commercial Neighborhood zoning that the property is currently zoned. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff in regards to the R30 zoning frontage requirements and which way the lots would face? Barry LeBaron stated in order to meet the frontage requirements for the R30 zoning district, the two lots would have to face Timberline Drive. Commissioner Byerly stated if the side, of one of the lots that would face Timberline Drive South, was on the side of Bransford Road, the appearance would hamper the open estate feel of the properties on Bransford Road. Commissioner Edwards agreed with the lots facing Timberline. Commissioner Blassingame stated it appears that one lot could face Bransford Road and the other lot could face Timberline Drive South. Commissioner Byerly stated if R30 were approved, there would be no way to mandate how the homes were to face unless a preliminary plat were approved with the layout of the lots. Commissioner Edwards questioned Commissioner Byerly if he would prefer the R20 with the smaller lots? Commissioner Byerly replied R20 not being an option because Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 12, 2005 Page 7 of 12 the applicant can not get three conforming lots on this property. Commissioner Byerly questioned Mr. Idoski if he would be willing to face one lot on Bransford Road and one lot on Timberline Drive South? Mr. Idoski replied he would prefer to face both lots to Timberline Drive South instead of Bransford Road because it is so busy. Mr. Idoski questioned the Commission in regards to what is the CN zoning? Commissioner Byerly replied Neighborhood Commercial. Barry LeBaron stated it is a commercial zoning with limited uses. Commissioner Blassingame questioned Mr. Idoski if the two lots facing Timberline Drive South would be ok? Mr. Idoski replied yes. Commissioner Edwards stated the two lots facing Timberline Drive South would finish out that subdivision. Commissioner Blassingame concurred with Commissioner Edwards in that Bransford Road is a busy street and facing Timberline Drive South would be better. Commissioner Byerly stated the property is surrounded by R40, and if the Commission is not going to vote for R40, then the R30 zoning would be better and would fit in with the Master Plan. Commissioner Bartkowski stated the R20 zoning is being presented and rather than saddle the applicant with tabling the case, the Commission should deny the R20 zoning instead of giving the applicant a zoning he does not really want. Commissioner Edwards suggested tabling this case as the Commission has done before, and having the applicant bring forth the R30 zoning for the next meeting. Chris Fuller stated the previous case was tabled because the applicant was not present and given what was suggested at that meeting, the applicant presented a different zoning case at the following meeting. Barry LeBaron stated that if the applicant receives a denial from the Commission, he will have ten days from this date to notify staff to appeal the case to city council, which may be better because it puts the issue in the applicant's hand rather than approving a zoning that the applicant really does not want. Commissioner Duffy stated the city council would have to have a super majority to approve the R20 zoning. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff in regards to how would the R20 denial effect the applicant from being able to bring forth another zoning application within the year? Barry LeBaron replied that would happen only if the city council denies the R20 zoning. Commissioner Dudziak questioned the Commission if they wanted to verify with the applicant if the R30 zoning would work? Commissioner Byerly replied being reluctant to approve the R30 zoning without a preliminary plat to go with it to see the layout of the lots. Commissioner Dudziak and Commissioner Blassingame concurred. Commissioner Dudziak stated the home should face Bransford Road to be consistent with the Master Plan which was approved by the community and the city council. Commissioner Edwards stated on a straight R30 zoning, the applicant can not be required to have to face the home on Bransford Road. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 12, 2005 Page 8 of 12 Commissioner Byerly stated it could be done if a preliminary plat and zoning were submitted at the same time. Commissioner Edwards stated only if the same property owner existed, however, if the property were to sell and the new owner submitted a new plat that met all the requirements, the Commission would have to approve the plat. Commissioner Blassingame made motion to deny case Z-05-024. Commissioner Byerly seconded. Mr. Idoski stated to the Commission that if the R20 is denied by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, he does not want the property to be rezoned to R30; it would need to remain the CN zoning. This zoning was a contingency on the purchasing of the property. The motion to deny was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None Commissioner Edwards stated to staff to make a brief note to city council as to why the R20 was denied so that they do not misunderstand the denial. TABLED AGENDA ITEMS 4. Case P-05-027 - Final plat for Castleton Manor Addition on 24.108 acres located at 6805 Pleasant Run Road Commissioner Bartkowski recuses himself from this agenda item. Commissioner Duffy made motion to remove case P-05-027 from table. Commissioner Dudziak seconded. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dudziak, Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None Chris Fuller presented the case and briefed the Commissioners. Commissioner Byerly questioned Attorney Kallas in regards to what is the procedure of approving this plat with the gate? Originally the Commission approved the preliminary plat with the deletion of the gate but city council approved the preliminary plat with the gate. What is the procedure the Commission should take regarding this final plat? Attorney Kallas replied once the city council has approved the gate there is no reversing that decision. The Commission would approve this plat if it met the regulations and according to staff, it does. Commissioner Byerly questioned if the city council could deny this final plat with the gate in place? Attorney Kallas replied the city council would be bound by the regulations and would have to approve the plat. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff in regards to the street being dedicated as a lot, is that correct? Chris Fuller replied in Chapter 10 of the Land Development Code a street in a gated subdivision may be referenced as a lot because it would be maintained by the Homeowner's Association (HOA). Commissioner Duffy questioned staff where on the document is the entrance box and Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 12, 2005 Page 9 of 12 how far is it from the street? Chris Fuller replied referring that question to the applicant. Barry LeBaron stated the dimensions for the turn around radius are noted on the plat. Commissioner Blassingame questioned staff if this plan in its entirety has been approved by engineering? Chris Fuller replied correct; Fire Department and the Engineering Department approved the gate and the turn around radius as submitted. John Fegan, the applicant, came forth to present the request and to answer any questions. Commissioner Byerly questioned Mr. Fegan in regards to where the entrance box would be located? Mr. Fegan replied as indicated on the drawing in front of the gate there is a big square box and the entrance box will be placed in that box. At this stage, the design has not been made. The gates will be wide enough to have two cars side by side. Commissioner Duffy stated a car will have to back out if he is not granted admittance into the gate. Mr. Fegan stated the car would not have to back out onto Pleasant Run Road with this design. Mr. Fegan stated a cut through could be made on the island where the box would be placed if needed. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if the City Attorney has approved the HOA documents or if the HOA documents have been delivered? Barry LeBaron replied the documents have been delivered. Commissioner Duffy questioned if the documents had been approved? Barry LeBaron stated the code states the HOA documents will need to be approved before the plat is filed with the county. Barry LeBaron stated having looked over all the HOA documents and they appear to have met all the requirements. Mr. Fegan stated the HOA documents were turned into the city over three months ago and again at the last Planning and Zoning meeting. Tim Meadows, 6901 Pleasant Run Road, stated the citizens concerns were addressed with the city council and approved with the gate. He stated approving Mr. Fegan's project as presented. Commissioner Dudziak stated the plat is not consistent with the ordinance; there should be a turn around of 30 feet between the call box and the gate. He stated if staff could realign the gate and call box with the ordinance, then he would have no issue of approving the plat. Attorney Kallas stated the plat could be approved with the condition of having the proper turn around requirements be satisfied. Commissioner Duffy stated this was an issue before when the final plat was presented before. He stated developers need to read the code before bringing it to the Commission for approval. Commissioner Duffy admonished staff to hold developers to the code. Commissioner Byerly stated having issues with the gate and that is why it was not approved on the preliminary plat. Commissioner Edwards stated the gate is poor thoroughfare planning on the part of the city. Commissioner Byerly made motion to approve case P-05-027 with the condition that the gate has the proper turn around requirement. Commissioner Blassingame seconded. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 12, 2005 Page 10 of 12 The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dudziak, Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None STAFF REPORTS COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Duffy stated to staff that the Commission is here to uphold the code and therefore the developers should not come to us until all requirements are met. He suggested a checklist for all requirements to be met. Barry LeBaron stated the Development Review Committee consists of several different departments who all review the plans. We will communicate your concerns to those departments. Commissioner Dudziak stated the checklist would be a lot easier to the developers. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. by acclamation. Respectfully Submitted, Amy Shelley Planning and Zoning Assistant Approved on: September 26,2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 12, 2005 Page 11 of 12