Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Minutes-7/23/2001 (2) Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - July 23, 2001 Page 1 of 8- Approved on 08113101 Chairman Hart called the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 7:00 P.M. on July 23, 2001. Roll Call: Present: Tom Hart, Jo Ann Gasper, Luann Edwards, Earl Swift, Mark Hollis, Jeff Wall, Bryan Hill [Note: Earl Swift was sworn in as Commissioner, Place 2 at the CIAC meeting that took place at 6:00 p.m.] Barry LeBaron, Clayton Husband, Jan Levy Staff: Invocation: Commissioner Gasper Approval of Minutes: July 9, 2001 Commissioner Gasper moved to approve the minutes as amended to expand the dialog on item #3 and add the second and vote on item #5. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Swift, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart Noes: None 1. A Minor Plat of Stewart's Grove requested by Larry Stewart, 2.00 acres located at 5201 Montclair Drive. Case P-01-020 Clayton Husband presented the case and reviewed the staff briefing. Commissioner Gasper moved to approve the minor plat, Case P-01-020. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Swift, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart Noes: None 2. A Final Plat of Heritage Glen Addition requested by Matt Torbit, Mady Development Corp., 10.0 acres located at 3508 Glade Road. Case P-01-021 Clayton Husband presented the case and reviewed the staff briefing. Commissioner Gasper said that the ordinance required Leyland spruce trees to be planted on 15' centers. She said that in the future they need to look at how realistic planting requirements are because Leyland spruce trees at maturity are larger than 15' centers. Commissioner Gasper said that they need to look at mature measurements to assure the health of the trees. Barry LeBaron asked the Commission to require a note on the final plat that all units must contain an automatic fire sprinkler system. He said that this would assure that the regulation is told to prospective buyers when the title work is done prior to purchase. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - July 23, 2001 Page 2 of 8- Approved on 08113101 Commissioner Gasper moved to approve the final plat of Heritage Glen Addition with the addition of the note regarding the requirement for automatic fire sprinkler systems being noted on the plat, Case P-01-021. Commissioner Hollis seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Swift, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart Noes: None 3. An Amended Plat of The Villas of Caldwell's Creek requested by Raman Chandler, located on the south side of John McCain Road near Colleyville Blvd. Case P-01-012 Clayton Husband presented the case and reviewed the staff briefing. Commissioner Gasper asked if the change in the easements would have an adverse affect on the drainage. Mr. Husband responded that it would not. Commissioner Gasper moved to approve the amended plat of The Villas of Caldwell's Creek, Case P-01-012. Commissioner Swift seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Swift, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart Noes: None 4. PUBLIC HEARING - A Special Use Permit for an Accessory Building requested by Jeff Vanderpool, located at 601 Shelton Drive. Case Z-01-019 Clayton Husband presented the case and reviewed the staff briefing. Commissioner Gasper asked if a super majority vote by the Council would be triggered because of the number of signatures in opposition that were presented in the form of a petition if the Commission recommend approval of the request. Staff responded that the calculations have not been done on the project because it would need to be done for the City Council public hearing and does not impact the vote by the Commission. Commissioner Gasper asked what the maximum square footage of the total accessory buildings allowed is on this size of property. Clayton Husband answered that the 1,750 square feet would be the total allowed for all of the accessory building sizes combined. He said that they already had an existing garage that is 600 square feet and they are proposing a 3,000 s.f. garage. Commissioner Swift asked what is the potential use and purpose of the building? Clayton Husband said that the applicant is best suited to answer those questions. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing and asked the applicant or the applicant's representative to speak first. Jeff Bodily, 2106 Vintage Court, McKinney, Texas, was present to represent the case. He said that he could not address the drainage issues. He said that the property was recently purchased during the end of April and the small 600 s.f. garage is the only accessory building one the property. Commissioner Swift said that there are four garages, being two bays in the main dwelling and two bays in the accessory garage. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - July 23, 2001 Page 3 of 8- Approved on 08113101 Jeff Bodily said that one of the issues that have been raised is the intended use of the building. He said that there is a lot of remodeling being done to the inside of the house and the concern expressed about the expansion of woodworking operation is not true. He said that there is no intention to and the owner of the property is a non-participating owner of a custom mill workshop in Dallas, but the structure being proposed is solely for storage of automobiles and watercraft. He said there would be no woodworking machinery stored in the building. Jeff Bodily said that the existing accessory building was constructed in such a way that even though it has two bays, the internal configuration only allows one vehicle to be placed inside. He said that it has a sloped roofline on one side. He said that the proposal is so that the owner can accommodate the other vehicles he has. Commissioner Gasper asked for clarification on the number of accessory buildings currently on the lot, excluding the house. Jeff Bodily said that there is just one, the small 600 s.f. on that is located northwest of the existing house. Jim Gleason, 600 Beverly Drive, said that the owner has four garages already. He said that the doors look like double garage doors on the proposed building, which makes it 9 garage doors. He said that even if he put five cars in the proposed building what would be done with the remaining 1,500 to 2,000 s.f.? He said that it appears to him that they will run some sort of a business out of there and he is very concerned about it. He said that he doesn't understand why the applicant would need 3,000 s.f. of building with three separate drains for a five car building. He said that it is a business waiting to happen. Mr. Gleason said that even if the applicant is a car aficionado, and he needs to fill the building with twenty cars, if the property is sold in two years, the next old boy will put a business in the building. He said that the neighbors would have a heck of a time removing the business. Bill Lothrop, 607 Shelton Drive, to the east of the property. He said that he has issues with the building size is just short of 3,000 s.f. and a typical two car garage is approximately 400 s.f. Mr. Lothrop said that in his opinion the request is substantial. He said that square footage of the building and the flat work, that is driveway area and parking area equal to or greater than the building itself, create substantial runoff on the neighboring property. Mr. Lothrop said that everything on the street creates water that runs downhill from west to east and the neighborhood has had substantial issues with water in the past. He said that they are concerned about the amount of water runoff that will be created by the amount of flat work and the damage it could do to the property nearby. Mr. Lothrop said that the make up of the building being 3,000 s.f. of metal gives the appearance of a commercial building. The building is larger in size that the Stowe Automotive building on Pleasant Run Road and it will give the concept of a commercial building in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Lothrop said that in his view and a ReMax realtor, the appearance of a commercial building would negatively impact the property that it sits on and the neighbors resale value. He said that it appears that the property is made up of two lots with one having the main dwelling and one having the 3,000 s.f. building with lots of flat work from the street to the back and the appearance is a detriment to the neighborhood. Commissioner Gasper asked Mr. Lothrop if he had a written statement from the realtor. He said that he did not, but he could forward one to the City Council. He said that the issue of the building itself and the makeup of the building are also going to lead to substantial activity associated with Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - July 23, 2001 Page 4 of 8- Approved on 08113101 a building 3,000 s.f. in size. He said the activity would be above the normal use one would see in a typical residential neighborhood. Marcella Gleason, 600 Beverly Drive, said that she is a real estate broker in private practice and she also has a good friend, with Mike Bowman Century 21, and everything Bill Lothrop said is true. She said that she could have a letter forwarded to the City from the Century 21 broker who strongly discouraged the approval of the building because it is in a residential neighborhood. Commissioner Gasper asked Ms. Gleason, as a real estate broker, what her professional opinion is. Mr. Gleason said that she would discourage the building because they live in a residential community. She said that the size, appearance, and activity are of great concern. Bill Stephens, 612 Shelton Drive, said that the building has an apartment in it with a full size bathroom, a work area. He said that he did some investigating on his own and talked to the owner's partner. His partner said that the owner races Porches and that is why he needs the building to store them and work on them. Mr. Stephens said that when he begins washing oil down the floor drains into the sewer system, it could affect the horses on each side of the lot with revving engines and noise. He said that the owner already has four garages and if he has six porches that he races, he needs to find a building that is not in a residential community and needs to go to a commercial property or buy himself a garage Christina Childress, 512 Beverly Drive, southwest of the property. She said that she is speaking on behalf of her husband and her 9%-month old child and believes that this garage could eventually be turned into a commercial use even though it may be intended to store Porsches now. She said that cars of that type always need to be tuned up and timed and this will not be a quiet action and could be considerably loud for the residential area. She said that they use their back yard and look across the land and this garage will totally impede their view. Ms. Childress said that if they wanted a lot of buildings around their lot, they would have stayed where they came from by the Tollway and HWY 635 in Dallas. She said that 2% years ago they were looking for new homes and the house on Beverly was the last house they looked at and thought they didn't want an older home until they walked the property. She said that they love the land so much and don't want to look at steel buildings and more development. Ms. Childress said that if this garage is allowed it could have a domino effect and there is too much concrete and too much steel. She said that they are concerned about the potential solvents that would be poured down the drains in the garage and how will it effect the land. She expressed concerns about storage of chemicals. She said that her daughter loves to go outside and look at the Longhorn cattle and the horses and now they would have a big view of the 3,000 s.f. building. She asked the Commission to deny the special use permit. Gary Quinn, 511 Shelton, west of the property. He said that currently they have an open area with horses in the neighborhood and this garage will impede their view and be as large as most houses in the neighborhood. He expressed concerns with potential noises and the effect it would have on the livestock in the area. Mr. Quinn said that the large building and amount of concrete would impede future sale of the property and not be aesthetically appealing. He asked the Commission to deny the special use permit. Norma Hensley, 608 Shelton Drive, directly across from the property. She said that they moved to Colleyville 20 years ago for the country atmosphere with animals, horses and barns. She said that the large steel building and concrete are a problem and she asked the Commission to deny Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - July 23, 2001 Page 5 of 8- Approved on 08113101 the special use permit. There being no one else present wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Edwards said that they have heard a lot of talk about possible businesses and the City has an ordinance that governs home businesses. She said that she did not remember any type of automotive business is allowed and it would need to be something that is inside a home. She asked staff to comment on the home business ordinance. Barry LeBaron said that he oversees the Code Enforcement department and one of the most difficult items to deal with relates to automobile related uses at a home. He said that what is one man's hobby is another person's nuisance and working on one car may not be a problem, but more could create a problem and nine would be a problem. Barry said that when you are dealing with automotive hobbies, it is really difficult from a Code Enforcement perspective to determine when it no longer is a hobby, but now a business. He said that there is lots of money in rebuilding an old corvette and some people have three or four of them and it leads to taking them to car shows to sell. Mr. LeBaron said that when Code Enforcement talks to the person and tells them they are creating a problem in the neighborhood, they respond that it is only a hobby. He said that specifically running an auto dealership in a neighborhood is prohibited and it is difficult to enforce sometimes when you are dealing with each prohibited use on a case by case basis. Commissioner Gasper said that she can understand the situation very well because they lived in a house once where a neighbor raced one automobile. She said that when he was out between 10:00 p.m. to midnight getting ready for a race, they could hear the noise even though the person did not live next door. She said that several people talked about two vacant lots and she asked staff to explain because she understands that there is one platted lot. Clayton Husband responded that the lot is platted as one lot, however it is zoned R40 and the potential to split the property into multiple lots, there is enough room to split it into two lots. Commissioner Swift said that there is a fence that runs down the middle of the property so one gets the impression that there are two pieces, but it is only one. He said that the observation he has is when looking from the street, this building would have a heavy commercial impression with that much driveway and concrete. Chairman Hart said that the applicant's representative had some other input and asked him to come forward. Jeff Bodily, the applicant's representative, said that the last thing that the applicant and his family want to do is to move into the neighborhood and create a situation where the homeowners around them are upset by them moving into the neighborhood. He said that the applicant initially talked to some people and told them what he was thinking of doing and obviously the people he talked to were a builder and architect. Mr. Bodily said that to the best of his knowledge, the applicant has one automobile that he races and he would never have more than that. He said that as far as working on the automobile, the applicant does not have the expertise to do any tuning or repairs on site as it is all done some place else. Mr. Bodily said that the plan for the driveway shows concrete, but it could be changed to gravel and this would address the drainage concerns and some appearance issues. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - July 23, 2001 Page 6 of 8- Approved on 08113101 Mr. Bodily said that the commercial appearance could be made to look like one of the barns in the neighborhood, it would not have a commercial appearance. He said that there are a number of large barns in the neighborhood. Chairman Hart asked him if there were any that size (3,000 s.f.) and he responded that he is not sure what the size of the barns are. Mr. Bodily said that as far as the building activity, the applicant can currently build a building that is a little over 1,100 s.f. without requiring a special use permit. Chairman Hart said that was correct. Mr. Bodily said that even with a 1,100 s.f. building there will be some activity on the property and he is not sure that there would be more activity between a 1,100 s. f. building and a 2,900 s.f. building. He said that he understands the neighbors concerns with the drains in the garage and potential pollutants, but the drains could be removed. Mr. Bodily said that there was originally a plan that was submitted that showed the garage in the area behind the existing residence. He said that depending upon where you live, it would be less of an impact from the street rather than having an appearance that it is on a vacant lot. He said that the way the zoning is addressed right now, if the lot was about 1/3 of an acre bigger, the applicant would be able to build the proposed garage without triggering a special use requirement. Chairman Hart said that is not relevant because the applicant does not have the additional property. He asked staff what the maximum size allowed for an accessory building. Barry LeBaron said that 2,500 s.f. is the total square footage allowed in the total accessory buildings on the lot. He said that what every the applicant currently has in the existing detached garage would be deducted from the 2,500 s.f. and the remainder is what the maximum square footage would be allowed. Commissioner Gasper asked Mr. Bodily if the owner would like the opportunity to reach some agreeable accommodations with the neighbors because the applicant was led to believe that everything was O.k. and obviously the neighbors say it is not O.k. Mr. Bodily said that absolutely they would like to meet with the neighbors to address the concerns. Commissioner Gasper moved to table Case Z-01-019 so that the owner can have an opportunity to see if he can work out an agreeable reasonable accommodation with the neighbors. Chairman Hart said that he personally will not vote for the case being tabled and he wants to vote on a motion tonight to either accept or deny the special use permit. He said that if the applicant cuts his plans in half, he is back at 1,750 s.f. roughly and would be in compliance. Commissioner Gasper said that she could not vote for the special use permit as proposed, but she also has some sympathy for the property owner who is not able to attend the meeting to have not heard the comments. She said that he may have decided that he may not want to pursue the special use permit based upon the information given tonight. Commissioner Hart asked staff if they deny the case tonight, what the time period for which the applicant could bring back another application. Barry LeBaron said that the time period does not apply to the P & Z. He said that if they deny it, the applicant would need to decide if he wants to take it forward to the City Council to be heard. He said that if the City Council would deny it, there would be a one year wait. Chairman Hart said that the applicant could come back with another plan to the P & Z or meet the requirements. Barry LeBaron said that the owner would have to deal with another application and application fee. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - July 23, 2001 Page 7 of 8- Approved on 08113101 Commissioner Gasper said that she could not live with the application as proposed, but she also feels sympathy for the applicant. Commissioner Hill said that he would second her motion and said that he sees where it is going. He said that it sounds as if the applicant's representative has offered some tentative wiggle and change room. He said he would be giving them a chance, based on the comments from staff, the Commission, and the neighbors to go ahead and see if there is a workable situation in the next couple of weeks. Commissioner Edwards asked staff how much the reapplication fee would be. Staff responded that the fee would be $500.00 Commissioner Hollis asked if the lot was split into two lots and the garage was built on the second lot, would they need a special use permit. Staff responded that you cannot have an accessory building alone on a residential lot. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Hill Noes: Swift, Hollis, Hart [Note: four affirmative votes are required to approve.] Chairman Hart moved to recommend denial of the special use permit, Case Z-01-019. Commissioner Swift seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Swift, Hollis, Hill, Hart Noes: None Barry LeBaron advised the applicant, that he would receive a letter from staff, but within ten days, if the applicant decides he wants to go before City Council, he will need to give staff a letter stating that is what he would like to do. Commissioner Gasper asked staff to what extent could the applicant make changes on his plan with going forward to City Council. Barry LeBaron said that he could make changes however he wants to go to City Council. Commissioner Hollis said that it would be to the applicants benefit to meet with the neighbors and try to address their concerns before going to Council. Chairman Hart told the applicant that it will take a super majority vote by the Council to approve the special use permit. Commissioner Gasper asked staff if there was any recourse on the application fee if the owner wants to come back to the P & Z with a new application. Staff advised her that the P & Z could make that recommendation, but only City Council can waive the fee and if that is approved, he would be refunded the fee. Barry LeBaron said that if the applicant presents staff with a letter asking to go forward with the case to the City Council, staff will re-notify the property owners so they will be made aware of it. 5. Citizens' comments regarding items not on the agenda: There were none. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - July 23, 2001 Page 8 of 8- Approved on 08113101 6. Staff comments, reports and discussion items: Staff reminded the Commissioners about the upcoming training session presented by the Midwest APA Section on July 30th. 7. Commissioners' comments and reports: Commissioner Gasper directed staff to format the Commission's letter of commendation to the staff and bring it to the next meeting for them to sign. Chairman Hart welcomed Commissioner Swift and advised the P & Z Commissioners whose terms of office are up in September to reapply if they want to. ADJOURNMENT: The Commission moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 p. m. The motion was seconded and passed by acclamation. Respectfully Submitted, n Levy Planning & Zoni Approved on: August 13, 2001 as corrected (minor spelling errors). NOTE: As a matter of public record, an audio recording of the above Planning and Zoning Commission meeting is available upon request.