Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Minutes-4/9/2001 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - April 9, 2001 Page 1 of 5 - Approved on 04123101 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart at 7:00 P.M. on April 9, 2001. Roll Call: Present: Tom Hart, Jo Ann Gasper, Luann Edwards, Joe Hocutt, Mark Hollis, Jeffrey Wall Bryan Hill Clayton Husband, Jan Levy Absent: Staff: Invocation: Commissioner Gasper Approval of Minutes: March 26, 2001 Commissioner Gasper moved to approve the minutes. Commissioner Hocutt seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Hocutt, Hollis, Wall, Hart Noes: None 1. PUBLIC HEARING - A Zoning Change requested by Matt Torbit, Mady Development, L.P. from AG (agricultural) to PUD-R (planned unit development-residential) on 8.44 acres located at 3308 - 3316 Glade Road. Z-01-008 - Strathmore Add'n Clayton Husband presented the case to the Commission and reviewed the staff briefing. Commissioner Hollis opened discussion on the open space design, the single entry and the means of calculating the number of lots on a cul-de-sac. Matt Torbit, applicant, was present to address the Commission. He spoke about landscaping designs on Glade Road and for the open space. He said that there will be brick walls on Glade Road. Commissioner Gasper pointed out that the applicant's tax revenue information incorrectly states 18 homes rather than 14 homes. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Those present wishing to speak: Trudy Brukes, 3200 St. Albens Circle, stated that she and her husband are opposed to the request. Roberta Mason, 3304 Huntington Drive, said that the City has put in swales on both sides of her lot. She said that the north side of the property needs to be open for drainage purposes. Gary Cantrell, 3400 Glade Road, asked questions about the fencing requirements for each rear lot. He said that he wants uniform fencing along the east side of the subdivision. Matt Torbit, applicant, said that he is still working with a landscape architect to design perimeter fence standards. He said that Mr. Cantrell currently has a tin panel fence along a section of the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - April 9, 2001 Page 2 of 5 - Approved on 04123101 eastern property line and he would want that removed. He said that he is not planning on putting a wall along the northern side, but will do plantings. Discussion by the Commission ensued about fencing. Matt Torbit said that some of the requirements for the property he is developing to the east came from people being able to see the sides of the property from Glade Road. He said that this is not the case with this property and he will meet with Mr. Cantrell to come to an agreement about fencing. Commissioner Gasper asked questions about green space between the street and sidewalk. Staff advised her that there will be 20' of green space and then a portion of that 20' will be taken up by the sidewalk and trail. Commissioner Gasper moved to suspend the rules to allow a previous speaker to speak again. Commissioner Hollis seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Hocutt, Hollis, Wall, Hart Noes: None Gary Cantrell approached the Commission and asked them to state in their motion to approve the fencing requirement that the fence is consistent fencing and the developer needs to include the requirements in the deed restrictions. Commissioner Hollis asked Mr. Cantrell if the fence could be built one lot at a time as the lots sell and homes are constructed. Mr. Cantrell responded that would be all right as long as the fence construction was consistent. Commissioner Gasper asked Mr. Torbit if there will be a homeowners' association. He responded that there will be and they will maintain the open space. He said that he will require the fencing guidelines within the design standards. He said that there is currently a black chain link fence along the western boundary and it was built by the property owner to the west. He said if the potential owners of lots along the western boundary are happy with that fence, they should not be required to build another kind of fence. He said that if a potential homeowner along the western boundary wants to build another fence, it would have to be consistent with the subdivision guidelines. Commissioner Edwards said that an exhibit could be included in the zoning change ordinance that specifies those guidelines. Chairman Hart asked Mrs. Mason if she was satisfied with having no fence, only plantings, on the northern boundary. She responded that she was satisfied. Discussion ensued by the Commission regarding the legalities of not fencing an open water area within a subdivision. Matt Torbit said that the Commission could possibly state in their motion that he may have the right but not the requirement to put ornamental fencing around Lot 9. He said that he has assured the homeowners in Fox Meadows that he would not fence the northern .-..nning ... ZotMQ Commi$sion Minutes - AprU 9, *1 Page 3 of 5 - Approved on 04123101 boundary so that their views will not be blocked, but if he is legally required to due to liability issues, he will. He also said that he was not opposed to the Commission requiring consistent fencing for the subdivision. Clayton Husband said that staff could write a clause in the ordinance that gives the developer the right to build a fence subject to certain conditions, but not compel them to build a fence. He said that if they wanted to build a fence it would have to meet certain criteria. Commissioner Edwards asked if staff could also write a clause in the ordinance regarding consistent fencing on the western side only if there is a problem with the existing fencing and it is not required up front for the builder to place a fence along the western side. Clayton Husband said that generally fences are not required and homeowners fence because of their desire to have a fence. He said that staff could write a clause that says in the event the homeowner along the western boundary of the subdivision wants to put up a fence, it has to be of a certain criteria. He said that these regulations would not prohibit someone on the adjacent property to the west from putting up a wood fence. He said that even if the homeowner in Strathmore constructs an ornamental fence, it cannot control the property next door. There being no one else present wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gasper moved to recommend approval with the following additions: 1) if there is fencing along the eastern, northern, and western boarder of Lot 9, it shall be an ornamental metal fence; and 2) the design standards or deed restrictions have a consistent standard for fencing along the eastern and western boundary running north and south beginning at the southern side of Lot 9 based upon the developer's design standards. Commissioner Edwards seconded the motion. Commissioner Hocutt said that he wanted it to be clear that the Commission wants the eastern side to be built immediately once the lot has been sold and the builder starts to build. He said that on the western side a fence will only need to be built once there is a need for a fence. Commissioner Gasper said that she does not think that they need to put that specification into the ordinance because if the design standards in the homeowners' architectural control rules specify the standard for the fencing, it will be up to the homeowner or the developer to put in the fencing. Commissioner Hocutt said that he was looking out for Mr. Cantrell, because it would be odd to have fencing on three lots than two lots have no fencing at all. He said that as someone travels down Glade Road it would be odd to have sporadic fencing. He said that the east side needs fencing all the way down the property because it is such an open area. Commissioner Hollis said that perhaps a friendly amendment was in order to require the east side of the property to be built out. Commissioner Gasper amended the motion to include another addition: Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - April 9, 2001 Page 4 of 5 - Approved on 04123101 3) the fencing along the east side of the property beginning at Lot 9 to Glade Road shall be constructed at the time that there is building on the lot. Commissioner Edwards seconded the amendment to the original motion. Commissioner Gasper asked staff if the ordinance that will go before City Council will be revised to reflect their recommendation. Clayton Husband said that the ordinance in the Commission's packet is a draft to indicate what the minimum standards for the development are at the time of the developer's application. The standards are always subject to amendment until a final vote by the Council is taken. Commissioner Hollis asked if the fencing around Lot 9 is at the discretion of the builder or is it required. Clayton Husband responded that a fence will be constructed along the eastern boundary of Lot 9 and they have the ability to construct the fence along the other boundaries of Lot 9. He said that it needs to meet the minimum design standards, doesn't block water, and is consistent with the fencing along the eastern boundary. He said that the western side is contingent upon the other fence being removed or if a homeowner decides to build another fence, it needs to meet the same established standard. Commissioner Gasper stated that the design standard except for Lot 9, will be left open so that the developer can determine what it will be as long as it consistent. Lot 9 exclusively will be ornamental iron. Commissioner Hocutt asked if the architectural standards for the fencing will be approved at the same time that platting is approved in order for the developer to work out with his contractors what that will be. Clayton Husband said that the standard will be written up prior to going before City Council. Chairman Hart called for the vote. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Hocutt, Hollis, Hart Noes: Wall 2. Citizens' comments regarding items not on the agenda: There were none. 3. Staff comments, reports and discussion items: There were none. 4. Commissioners' comments and reports: There were none ADJOURNMENT: The Commission moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 p.m. The motion was seconded and passed by acclamation. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - April 9, 2001 Page 5 of 5- Approved on 04123101 Respectfully Submitted, J Levy Planning & Zoning Assistant Approved on: April 23,2001 NOTE: As a matter of public record, an audio recording of the above Planning and Zoning Commission meeting is available upon request.