Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Minutes-11/12/2001 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - November 12,2001 Chairman Gasper called the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 7:05 P.M. on November 12, 2001. Roll Call: Present: Jeffrey Wall, Bob Culley, Earl Swift, Mark Jones, Bud Sellers, Jo Ann Gasper Absent: Mark Hollis Staff: Barry LeBaron, Clayton Husband, and Jan Levy Invocation: Chairman Gasper Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Minutes: October 22,2001 Commissioner Wall moved to approve the minutes of October 22, 2001. Commissioner Culley seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Gasper Noes: None 1. PUBLIC HEARING - A Zoning Change from AG to R40 (single family residential) requested by Donald C. Wilson on 1.4 acres located at 5102 Montclair Drive on the west side of the street, Case Z-01-026 Clayton Husband presented the case to the Commission. He told them that this zoning change is for a 1.4 acre parcel located on the west side of Montclair Drive. He said that this property will be incorporated with a portion of another parcel that is already zoned R40 and the applicant, Donald Wilson, will build a single family residence and both parcels of property will be platted together as two lots in the future once the zoning change is approved by Council. He said thatthe subdivision plat of the property is under review. Mr. Husband said that the rezoning request is consistent with the Colleyville Master Plan and there are single family homes built on nearly all of the properties along Montclair Drive and most of the surrounding properties. He said that water and sanitary sewer service are available along Montclair Drive and sidewalks across the frontage are required and would be built when the house is constructed on the site. He told the Commission that the zoning exhibit has been reviewed by the DRC and meets all of the requirements of the City for a zoning exhibit and staff recommends approval. ' Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 12,2001 Page 1 of 11- Approved November 26, 2001 Chairman Gasper opened the public hearing. The applicant, Don Wilson, 6408 Regiment Place, was available to answer any questions by the Commissioners. There was no one else present wishing to speak and Chairman Gasper closed the public hearing. Commissioner Wall moved to recommend approval of the rezoning from AG to R40. Commissioner Swift seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Gasper Noes: None 2. PUBLIC HEARING - A Zoning Change from R20 to PUD-R (planned unit development- residential with a mixed residential & commercial use) requested by Claire Edwards, on Lot 18, Block 3, Andy Felps Addition located on the northeast corner of Cheek Sparger Road and Felps Drive, Case Z-01-029 Clayton Husband presented the case to the Commission. He explained that the Commission had earlier considered a rezoning request to CPO, but when that request went before the City Council, the applicant requested that the zoning application be amended from a request to a PUD-R Planned Unit Development Residential. He said the Council referred the case back to the Commission because the Commission has not made a recommendation on the PUD-R district. Mr. Husband told the Commission that the PUD-R zoning district allows the mixing of residential and non-residential land uses within the same development or the same structure. He told them about other PUD-R districts in Colleyville that have similar mixed uses and about how the Ritz Office Building at 5316 Bransford Road and the Village at Colleyville include mixed land uses within the same structure. Clayton explained how the PUD-R district is site specific and allows for customization of regulations. He said that the Commission and City Council would have greater flexibility to establish conditions to address property owner concerns than through another zoning district. He said staff took the comments from both the applicant and the surrounding property owners to propose and ordinance. He said these conditions should be evaluated and revised based on the input from the applicant, speakers at the public hearing, and the Commissioners discussion. Mr. Husband said the proposed ordinance restricts the use of the property to single-family residence and accounting office and allows both the uses to occupy the same building. He said the size of the accounting office would be restricted to 53% of the square footage of the building versus the home occupation regulations restricting the size of a home-based occupation to 25% of the building area. Clayton said the percentage used in the ordinance is based on a general review of the applicant's plan for the building, but the number can be adjusted. He said the ordinance proposes a minimum lot size of 20,00 square feet, the requirement of the R20 district, and the building setbacks would comply with the PUD-R regulations. Clayton told the Commission that staff's proposed ordinance allows one employee on site and the hours of operation of the accounting office may be included in the restrictions. He explained that they placed a sign requirement that it not exceed one square foot in area and is consistent with Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 12, 2001 Page 2 of 11- Approved November 26. 2001 the home occupation regulations. He said if the property is ever divided into additional lots, the ordinance includes a provision that would restrict the new lot to single-family residential use only. The Commission had questions for staff about the current signage and the prospect of additional signs being allowed. They asked staff to discuss the current Master Plan land use on this lot and the surrounding area. There was discussion about the surface of the parking lot and then Chairman Gasper asked Barry to give a history of how they got from the CPO request to this request for a PUD-R. Mr. LeBaron told about the complaint staff received from a neighbor and how he and the Code Enforcement Officer investigated and saw an excessive use of the business rather than a home use. He said that they notified the property owner and gave her information about how she needed to come into compliance with the home occupation regulations or rezone the property to another zoning category that would allow for the office use. Chairman Gasper asked Mr. LeBaron to explain the flexibility the commissioners have to establish an ordinance for the PUD-R district. He told them they needed to consider the site and address the issues and establish a rationale for the use. The Commission questioned why a fine for the non-conformance had not been assessed and Mr. LeBaron explained how staff works with someone who is working through the process of either bringing the non-conformity into compliance or seeking a rezoning to allow the property to come into compliance. He said that if staff ticketed and fined someone for a non-conformance and they were working on bringing the property into conformance, a judge would probably determine that they are going through the due process. The Commission discussed possible development controls in a PUD versus the nonexistence of controls in the current R20 district. They discussed the percentages established for the mixed use and staff told the Commission that even though percentages are established for a mixed residential/commercial use, the owner is not compelled to do either use. They explained how there are several properties in the area that are zoned commercial and are not being used for commercial uses and are vacant as well as homes that are vacant and not forced to be occupied. Chairman Gasper read a prepared statement stating the issues before the Commission for them to consider a zoning change. She opened the public hearing and told the audience about the time limitations for speakers. Those present wishing to speak were: Michael Newman, an attorney representing the applicant Claire Edwards. He presented pictures to the Commissioners and told them that the property has retained a residential character. He said there are over 50 trees on the property and he said the question for them to consider is whether the accounting use will adversely affect the neighborhood. Mr. Newman said that staff members recommended CPO zoning to Claire Edwards and now she has suggested a PUD zoning in order to place limitations and regulations on the property and business use. He said in the past there were discussions about if she was in compliance and that issue is to be reserved for municipal court. Mr. Newman said that there is no established regulation that defines residence and a residence is what the Commission says it is. He said that issue does not need to be debated today. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 12, 2001 Page 3 of 11- Approved November 26, 2001 Michael Newman told about how Claire Edwards renovated the house and she felt that her use of the house fit within the exception. He told the Commission that they needed to decide whether or not the use would adversely affect the neighborhood. He told about the history of the house being moved into Colleyville and when Claire bought it, it was vacated and was a nuisance and an eyesore. He said every residence in the Andy Felps Addition is in favor of the request and the letters that they presented for the CPO zoning change were still relevant for the PUD-R. He said the properties on the west side of Acuff have gone commercial. Mr. Newman said that with the accounting office currently being operational, there is no evidence that the use is affecting Colleyville in an adverse impact. He said that the mailbox currently has Ms. Edwards name with the initials C.P.A. after it and the address number. He said that is not a sign and the initials after her name are no different than a doctor having M.D. after his name. He said that aside from tax season there are few cars on the property and some days there are none. He said that the improvements of the home are a deterrent to criminal activity rather than having a vacant lot. He said that a mosque proposed to the east would have a bigger impact on Cheek Sparger traffic than Ms. Edwards's business. Mr. Newman said based on conversations with City officials, she felt she was in compliance with the City regulations. He said the Commission needs to consider the appropriate use for the property and not let fines or past uses interfere with their decision. He said Ms. Edwards has relocated her one employee and is attempting to comply with the regulations. He explained about the various uses allowed in a PUD and a good example is the Ritz office building right around the corner where 63% of the building is used for business purposes. He said that the Ritzes use the building for temporary housing as they have other residences. He read the letter of support from Alan Linford and also portions of a letter from John Ballard on Acuff. He addressed staff's denial due to the future land use portion of the Master Plan. Tim Roberts, 215 Cheek Sparger, spoke in opposition. He expressed concerns about the future expansion of the commercial use on the property. He said the property has never really been vacant and he doesn't want a striped parking lot on the lot. He said he and his family do not want the zoning change to happen. Steve Knight, 3917 Felps Court, spoke in opposition. He said he wants to preserve the safety and integrity of the neighborhood. Mr. Knight said he relied on the Master Plan when he bought his house and said there are clear delineations between the residential uses and the commercial uses. He commented on how the applicant has gotten to the point of rezoning and asked the Commission not to rewrite the law. He said it would be unwise and unreasonable to grant the rezoning request and allow the ills that come when a mixed use is allowed. Olivia Locker, 116 Cheek Sparger Road, spoke in favor. She said she lives to the west of the request and agrees with the proposal. She said she is in favor of anyone who wants to do anything in that area as the applicant has made the neighborhood a better place. She said the applicant is trying to do what is right and she should be given the zoning change. Randy Knight, 4205 Felps Drive, spoke in favor. He said he could understand that the neighbors on Felps Court did not want a store with lights shining at night, but this is not the case with this Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 12, 2001 Page 4 of 11- Approved November 26, 2001 proposal. He said the applicant has made the house better than most houses on the street and there is no commotion. He said he wished everyone would fix up their places like she did and he hoped as neighbors, everyone could get along with each other. Joe Mosimo, 215 Cheek Sparger, spoke in opposition. He said that sometimes when new laws are written, Pandora's box is opened. He told about a saying he learned from someone about "doing right". Dwayne Locker, 116 Cheek Sparger Road, spoke in favor. He said that if she owned a home just a few houses down on Cheek Sparger, she could get approval for her office. He said he didn't think that was right. Wanda Knight, 3917 Felps Court, spoke in opposition. She said she wishes the applicant would move down the street. She spoke about the Master plan and the potential to have pink dots in the middle of residential areas. Michael Newman spoke in rebuttal. He said Cheek Sparger already has pink dots all the way down the street and future homes will not be built on this busy street. He told the Commission again that they need to decide if this is an appropriate use on this property and not consider the past allegations. He said the accounting office does not negatively impact the neighborhood and the decision needs to stay on track with the use. He disputed claims about intentional misuse of the home, and he said the claim about bringing ills to the neighborhood are false as there are no ills associated with the accounting business being in that location. Chairman Gasper closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sellers asked staff about regulations for screening requirements on a commercial property, the driveway location on Cheek Sparger; the proposed hours of operation; the possibility of expansion, and the possibility of writing these items into the proposed ordinance. Staff informed the Commission that all of the restrictions that they request that are reasonable could be written into the PUD ordinance. Commissioner Swift asked who planted the garden that was in one of the pictures Mr. Newman gave to the Commission. He complimented the gardener. (The garden was planted and maintained by the applicant.) He said he had trouble with Mr. Newman's remarks as Mr. Newman tried to define the Commissioners job. He said the fact of the matter is the applicant is currently not in compliance with the zoning regulations. He said that he is not aware of any illegal activities. Commissioner Swift said that Mr. Newman bringing up the proposed mosque in the area is not a factor in their decision process. He said that the character of the neighborhood is residential. Commissioner Wall said the Commissioners need to look at the Master Plan and consider citizens' comments. He said that if a majority of landowners in the Andy Felps Addition want to change the Master Plan so that their properties can be considered for commercial use, they need to come together and petition the City and force a change to the Master Plan. He said that when the Commission makes a change to the Master Plan, it is done at a high cost and they need to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood especially where the property is already zoned residential. Commissioner Wall said to change a single lot causes great concern and they have a responsibility to City Council to make good decisions. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 12, 2001 Page 5 of 11- Approved November 26, 2001 Commissioner Jones said that he echoes the comments made by Commissioners Wall and Swift. He said the Master Plan protects neighborhoods and they have a responsibility to listen to the citizens and follow the Master Plan. He said it does not appear to be a majority in favor of the zoning change request. Commissioner Jones asked Chairman Gasper to restate from her prepared statement as to what the issues are that the Planning and Zoning Commission are considering associated with this zoning change request. She also said that they have a Master Plan to follow and people in the community buy homes based on that plan. She said they have an ordinance in front of them that has more than half of the use commercial and maybe the category should be a PUD-C. Chairman Gasper said they have an obligation to the community to protect neighborhoods. Commissioner Culley stated his beliefs that the property has improved, the commercial use of the structure was not done the right way, and Mr. Newman's comments were valid. He said if a person does not live at the location, they would be less likely to take care of the property. He said he felt the Commission had no business making a change to the zoning of the property at this point. Commissioner Wall spoke about the Andy Felps residents making a change to the Master Plan and he asked staff what the process would be for that to happen. Barry LeBaron explained the procedure. Commissioner Gasper raised the point of spot zoning. Mr. LeBaron explained how courts determined cases that related to spot zoning and how there is no real definition of spot zoning. He said the best thing to look for is if the zoning is out of character for the neighborhood. Commissioner Wall moved to deny the zoning change. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Gasper Noes: None 3. PUBLIC HEARING - Amendments to the Land Development Code regarding Special Use Permit requirements for land uses in the CC2 Shopping Center zoning district requested by the City of Colleyville, Case Z-01-027 Chairman Gasper opened the public hearing. There being no one present wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Wall discussed the issues of vested rights statutes and how uses are exempt under vested rights. Chairman Gasper gave an overview of the discussion from the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for the Commissioners who were absent. They discussed the origin of request to amend the zoning district and were told that the request was generated by the City Council. Chairman Gasper said it is to the city's advantage to have uses by right and how she felt that the Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 12, 2001 Page 6 of 11- Approved November 26, 2001 Special Use Permit requirement could impede future commercial development of Colleyville. The Commission discussed the requirements and how most uses were still by right except for kennels or building materials with outside displays. They discussed the reason there is a perceived need to be more restrictive. Commissioner Wall asked staff if Colleyville was comparable to Southlake, Grapevine, Keller, and North Richland Hills for restrictions in the commercial zoning districts. He wanted to know if Colleyville stuck out as fare as Special Use requirements in other communities. Barry LeBaron responded that there has been a shift in making zoning decisions because of the complexity of the issues. He said citizens are asking for greater control in zoning regulations, and consequently there may be more court cases against cities for being arbitrary. The Commission and staff discussed that there is no statutory language for Special Use Permits and yet it is an accepted practice to list conditional uses. Commissioner Wall said he sees concerns with this ordinance and yet the City Council format is where the public and Council will debate the issues and tax implications. He said he'd rather err on the side of letting the Council making the decision to change the regulations and giving them something to discuss. He said that developers and citizens might come forward in Council meetings. Barry LeBaron told the Commission why staff is recommending approval of the ordinance. He told them staff would be looking at expanding the land use table in the future. Commissioner Wall moved to recommend approval of the ordinance. Commissioner Culley seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers Noes: Gasper 4. TABLED ITEM - Consideration of amendments to Chapter 9 of the Land Development Code relating to Perimeter Street Improvement Requirements, Case Z-01-022 Commissioner Wall moved to remove the case from the table for discussion. Commissioner Sellers seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None Barry LeBaron presented the case to the Commission. He said that in the past several meetings staff and the Commission have looked at four different scenarios. He explained the practice and policy of how the Council has been waiving the perimeter street improvement requirements in a two-lot subdivision plat when there is an original homestead involved. He explained the four proposed policies. Chairman Gasper spoke about the relationship she sees between the Parkland Dedication ordinance and the need for establishing a fixed fee for perimeter street improvement Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 12, 2001 Page 7 of 11- Approved November 26, 2001 requirements. The Commission discussed the proposed policies and the need to encourage larger lots. They said that they would like to establish a minimum and a maximum fee, and have a policy where people wouldn't try to get around the rules and pay less than they should by rezoning to avoid paying a higher fee. They discussed the pros and the cons of each proposal. Chairman Gasper entertained a motion. She said they should do the motion in two parts, one for the method and one for the amount. Commissioner Culley moved to consider an amendment to Chapter 9 of the Land Development Code regarding perimeter street improvement requirements pursuant to the ability to attach a fixed fee. Commissioner Swift seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Gasper Noes: Jones, Sellers Commissioner Wall said that he did not sense that he had support for another method of collecting fees. Commissioner Wall moved to reconsider the motion. Commissioner Culley seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers Noes: Gasper Commissioner Wall asked what the solution would be to get them off the head of the pin. Commissioner Jones said if he explained to him how the sliding scale would work equitably and give him some examples why he thinks it is inefficient to use the fixed rate, that would help him make a decision. The Commission discussed other proposals. NOTE: The Commissioners took a short break. The Commission was called back into session and the meeting resumed. The Commissioner discussed other proposals regarding fees and sliding percentages. Commissioner Swift proposed that there be 0% waiver at 100', 50% waiver at 200' or above in order to encourage larger lots. Chairman Gasper said that if the Commission gets back to where they started from, it is better for the City to recoup something than to have the cost so onerous that the applicant goes before City Council and the fee gets waived. Commissioner Seller asked if the percentages could also be on a sliding scale. Chairman Gasper said that whatever they do, the regulation needs to be simple enough to explain. Commissioner Swift said that the numbers are staggering for the larger lots. Commissioner Jones said that if they collected the entire amount of $138.78 per foot of street frontage, that would force Council to consider a lot of waivers and it's incumbent upon them to come up with something that makes sense and they can build on. He said that a fixed fee with a sliding scale gives Council something to work up from. Commissioner Jones said as the policy is today, Council is granting 100% of the Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 12, 2001 Page 8 of 11- Approved November 26, 2001 requested waiver every time. Chairman Gasper said that as a practical matter Council would not be granting waivers every time because the fee that is going to be assessed is more reasonable and it will become harder for somebody to get a waiver. Discussion ensued about if someone could even ask for a waiver. Barry LeBaron said that he envisioned that the Commission and Council set a policy that everyone could live with; the intent is to get away from doing waivers. Commissioner Jones said that if the Commission is in waiver for an original homestead, the owner could play with how he would subdivide the property and keep say 300' in the original homestead, and then put only 100' in the R20 portion and accomplish what the Commission and Council want to accomplish. He said the idea is to set into place some sort of mechanism to begin collecting rather than continuously granting waivers and this may be a good start. They discussed the difference between a family wanting to subdivide an original homestead to give a lot to their children versus a developer wanting to subdivide property. The Commission and staff discussed how the regulations do not differentiate between families or developers and how the last two cases they considered were people selling property to people other than families and the need for the City to recover funds to construct and improve streets. They discussed when someone creates a new lot and builds a new house, the land and home have value and fees should be collected. Staff told the Commissioners that the only times fees are collected are when a seller subdivides and plats their property. It does not happen upon the sale of a dwelling. Barry LeBaron told the Commission that staff will require language on the plat that states they have already gotten a waiver for the original homestead, but any future subdivision of the lot will require fees to be collected. Commissioner Swift said that he favors not granting a waiver for 100' of frontage so that the minimum the City will collect is $138,78 per foot for 100' of street frontage which is $13,878 and as the frontage increases you would recover more. Commissioner Swift said he favors the examples in Chart 9.1. He said he could live with the other chart if they considered dropping a waiver for 100' of frontage and then gradually increase the waiver for the increased street frontage over 100'. He said the chart they are discussing would be a 50% waiver for anything over 100', so the minimum would be $13,878 and then it would increase after that. He said this would encourage larger lots, because if you had a 200' lot is would cost $13, 878, a 300' lot would cost $20,817 and so on. They said that this method would encourage larger lot frontages and still have a sliding case with a base minimum of $13,878. Chairman Gasper asked if Luann Edwards had any comments. Ms. Edwards said that the former Commissions had to listen to a lot of owner/occupied people who could not afford to pay perimeter street improvements and she said that now might be a time for a change. She said that since the fee has been waived for so many years, they might want to come up with a straight percentage of the true cost and try something small to start with. Ms. Edwards said that only the next few months and the first few cases they see are going to tell if the policy is successful or not. She said that if they need to change it again, they could. Commissioner Sellers expressed disagreement with that because he didn't feel that they could set a policy and then change it in a short period of time. He suggested that they consider a graduated Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 12, 2001 Page 9 of 11- Approved November 26, 2001 flat fee rather than a percentage. Chairman Gasper said the Commission needs to make the plan simple and encourage larger lots. Commissioner Culley explained that Commissioner Swift suggested they give no consideration for a waiver for smaller lots with the idea being the City would retain a higher amount of money on smaller lots. He said he'd like to have Commissioners Sellers and Jones tell him what they think the right numbers are for those example and perhaps they can come to some sort of agreement on what those might be. Commissioner Jones explained his plan to not grant a waiver for the 100' lot and collect the full amount. He said they would then collect 80%, 70%, 60% and 50%, as the lot frontage gets bigger. He said it would accomplish Commissioner Swift's idea to encourage larger lots and the City is not losing as much money on fees since the 500' wide lot would be the exception and not the rule. Barry LeBaron asked what they would do for a lot that is 173 feet wide. Commissioner Jones said they would pay $139.00 multiplied by 173. Commissioner Jones said they are giving a significant discount for more frontage, and the majority of the lots they are not recovering everything, but they are recovering something. Commissioner Swift said there is an argument for simplicity. Commissioner Jones said that the table with the sliding percentages would achieve more dollars than just saying 50% across the board. Chairman Gasper said they needed to back up a moment and consider where they are coming from and where they've been. Commissioner Culley moved to recommend approval of amendments to Chapter 9 of the land Development Code regarding perimeter street improvement requirements to be what has been suggested by staff, the percentage approach graph, with the following revisions being: The waiver percent under the one lot plat, no existing dwellings, would be 0% for 100', 20% waiver, which means you are collecting 80% of the fee at 200', 30% for the 300', 40% for 400' and 50% for 500'. Commissioner Sellers seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Jones, Sellers Noes: Swift, Gasper 5. Citizens' comments regarding items not on the agenda. There were none. 6. Staff comments, reports and discussion items. There were none. 7. Commissioners' comments and reports. The Commission decided they would only hold one meeting in December 2001. They would hold the December 10th meeting. The fourth Monday in December is the 24th and it will not be held. ADJOURNMENT: The Commission moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:35 p.m. The motion was seconded and passed by acclamation. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 12, 2001 Page 10 of 11- Approved November 26, 2001 Respectfully Submitted, Approved on: November 26,2001 as written. NOTE: As a matter of public record, an audio recording of the above Planning and Zoning Commission meeting is available upon request. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 12,2001 Page 11 of 11- Approved November 28, 2001