Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Minutes-3/12/2001 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 12, 2001 Page 1 of 8- Approved 03/26/00 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart at 7:00 P.M. on March 12, 2001. Roll Call: Present: Tom Hart, Jo Ann Gasper, Joe Hocutt, Mark Hollis, Bryan Hill Luann Edwards, Jeffrey Wall Barry LeBaron Absent: Staff: Invocation: Commissioner Hill Approval of Minutes: February 26, 2001 Commissioner Gasper moved to approve the minutes. Commissioner Hollis seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Hocutt, Hollis, Hill, Hart Noes: None 1. Minor Plat of Wines Addition, Block 1, Lots 1 and 2, requested by Robert Mark Wines, 2.995 acres located at 201 L. D. Lockett Road, at the northwest corner of Bettinger Road. P-01-007 Barry LeBaron presented the case to the Commission and reviewed the staff briefing. Commissioner Gasper moved to approve the Wines Addition, Case P-01-007. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Hocutt, Hollis, Hill, Hart Noes: None 2. Minor Plat of Colleyville Community Center Addition Block 1, Lot 2, requested by the City of Colleyville, 4.363 acres located at 5201 Riverwalk Drive. P-01-008 Barry LeBaron presented the case to the Commission and reviewed the staff briefing. Commissioner Gasper moved to approve the Colleyville Community Center Addition, Lot 2, Block 1, Case P-01-008. Commissioner Hocutt seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Hocutt, Hollis, Hill, Hart Noes: None 3. PUBLIC HEARING - Replat of Jennings Estates, Block 1, Lots 1 Rand 2, requested by C. L. Madden, 3.00 acres located at 6112 Hunter Lane. P-01-009 Barry LeBaron presented the case to the Commission and reviewed the staff briefing. He explained that whenever there is a residential replat the Commission must hold a public hearing. He said the Mr. Madden has agreed with the engineering department to provide an asphalt turnaround to satisfy their requirement. He said that this asphalt will complete the turnaround at Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 12,2001 Page 2 of 8- Approved 03/26/00 the end of Hunter Lane. Mr. LeBaron said that staff is changing their recommendation from denial to approval because the engineering request has been met. He said that the 50' width of the one lot would be a waiver from the minimum width requirement at a public street. Mr. LeBaron said that the plat drawing will need to label the turnaround as an easement. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. No one was present wishing to speak and Chairman Hart closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gasper moved to approve the replat of Jennings Estates, Block 1, Lots 1 R & 2, Case P-01-009. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Hocutt, Hollis, Hill, Hart Noes: None 4. PUBLIC HEARING - Special Use Permit for a Carport requested by John Horobec, on Lot 6R2, Block 4, Chelsea Park Addition, located at 1809 Avalon Drive. Case Z-01-006 Barry LeBaron presented the case to the Commission and reviewed the staff briefing. He said that the applicant is asking for a 4' waiver from the side yard setback because the carport is closer to the property line than the regulations allow. He said the quality of the structure is excellent. Mr. LeBaron said that the applicant is out of town and has requested that the Commission not take action until their next meeting. Mr. LeBaron said that citizens have been notified of the public hearing and the Commission could open the public hearing and take input and at that time make a determination if they want to close the public hearing and delay action. Chairman Hart said that he lives in Chelsea Park and has talked to the applicant and some neighbors. He said that nobody he has talked to has objected to the carport. Commissioner Hill asked for clarification of the picture and drawing in the packet. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Those present wishing to speak were: Richard Ladd, 1812 Arthur Drive, he noted that another small building on the property is only 3.6 feet from the property line. He said that the roofline of the carport could pour water onto and wash out the neighbor's existing fence. He is opposed. Commissioner Hill asked Mr. Ladd if he had an opportunity to speak with the Knights, the neighbor he was speaking about. Mr. Ladd responded that he did not. Chairman Hart closed the public hearing because no one else was present to speak. Commissioner Hocutt moved to table the case as per the applicant's request. Commissioner Hollis seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Hocutt, Hollis, Hill, Hart Noes: None 5. TABLED ITEM - Zoning Change requested by Matt Torbit, Mady Development, from AG Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 12, 2001 Page 3 of 8- Approved 03/26/00 Agriculture to PUD-R Planned Unit Development Residential, on 10.0 acres located at 3508 Glade Road, west of Roberts Road. Case Z-01-005 Commissioner Gasper moved to remove the case from the table. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Hocutt, Hollis, Hill, Hart Noes: None Barry LeBaron presented the case to the Commission and reviewed the staff briefing. He said that in response to the comments by the Commission at the last meeting, the applicant has agreed to put in a 20' greenbelt along the eastern border and it is still below the 20% requirement. He said that the fire chief was concerned about the emergency access issues and the applicant has responded by offering to mandate sprinkler systems in the homes other than the two lots that abut Glade Road because they cannot get a second entrance into the subdivision. He said that the concerns about the fencing and landscaping and the developer has included wrought iron fencing and landscaping to mitigate any concerns by the neighbors. Mr. LeBaron said that the staff recommendation is the same as in the past when a development does not meet the technical requirements for open space and that is denial. He told the Commission that it is their prerogative to make a different recommendation to the City Council. Chief Johnston spoke in support of the developer's proposal for sprinkler systems in the homes. Commissioner Gasper requested that the Chairman ask the developer for clarification about the different kinds of fences in the subdivision. Matt Torbit said that iron fencing was proposed along the western property line, along the northern property line, and then back down the eastern property line. He said that masonry fencing would be a backdrop for the landscaping in the open space along the front. He said that Leyland Cyprus trees would be planted on the inside of the iron fencing to provide a living screen for privacy. He said that in a heavily wooded area a wood fence may need to be used for screening. Commissioner Gasper said that the proposed ordinance does not have any wording regarding fencing and Mr. LeBaron responded that it would have to be added. Ms. Gasper said that she would like to see everything that has been agreed to be placed into the ordinance. Commissioner Hill said that the applicant submitted a letter dated March 9, 2000 that had language to be incorporated into the ordinance and he asked staff to review it. He said that if was adequate, he would want it incorporated into the final ordinance if the Commission recommends approval. Chairman Hart said that the reason an emergency access or sprinkler systems were needed was because of the length of the cul-de-sac. Mr. LeBaron said that it because of two issues: the length of the cul-de-sac and the number of lots. Chairman Hart asked why the applicant did not need to provide sprinkler systems for the first two lots. Fire Chief Johnston said that if the detention pond is located in the same place as proposed on the changed exhibit, only one house would not need to be sprinkled, however, he would propose that all dwelling be required to have interior sprinkling systems to be consistent within the subdivision. Chairman Hart said that it would seem that the houses below the maximum length of a cul-de-sac would not be required to have interior sprinkling systems. Fire Chief Johnston said that since there is no alternate access into the subdivision, it wouldn't matter if it was the second house in or the last house on the block, Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 12,2001 Page 4 of 8- Approved 03/26/00 the fire department couldn't get to an emergency if the access was blocked from Glade Road. He said that because of the traffic on Glade Road there is a greater chance for the entrance to be blocked. Commissioner Gasper asked the applicant if they required him to have all of the houses to have an interior sprinkler system, would he be opposed? Mr. Torbit responded that the last time he met with the Commission he was given three things to resolve: the sprinklers, the fences, and the open space. He said that the first time he met with the Commission, he thought that the wider entry would be adequate, and then had to offer the sprinklers in the homes because of any potential blockage. He said that if the two homes could be accessed by Glade Drive, the concern would be taken away and that is why he left those lots out of the requirement. He said that the cost added for sprinkler systems is substantial. Commissioner Hollis asked how Mr, Torbit considers lot 19 accessible with the detention area behind it. Mr. Torbit said that there is not another home to block it. Commissioner Hollis asked Chief Johnston if he considers the detention area as an obstacle to the dwelling. He responded that it would an obstacle as there is a safety factor involved with crossing a detention area on Glade Road. He said that he would recommend that the house should have a sprinkler system. He said that he can understand the developer's concerns about the cost, but he would recommend consistency within the subdivision. Chief Johnston said that it would help the firefighters in route to a fire to know that all of the dwellings in the subdivision have interior sprinkler systems and not have to remember if any were exempt. Commissioner Hollis said that another obstacle between Glade Road and these two dwelling would be a fence. Commissioner Hill said that sees that the developer has worked very hard to overcome objections and it may be a hardship for him to require the two lots to have sprinkler systems. He said that he could be in favor of exempting the two lots from being required to have sprinklers. Commissioner Gasper moved to recommend approval of the zoning change request with the ordinance to have the language in it regarding the fences and all of the houses are required to have interior sprinkler systems. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion. Discussion about the open space of the subdivision ensued by the Commission. Commissioner Hollis asked Mr. Torbit if he would be requesting any additional changes from City Council if the item were passed as recommended. Mr. Torbit responded that the plan works as stated. He said that he negotiated with the church and has provided an additional tract that is along the eastern boundary. He said that the additional property enlarges the open space over 5% to 7.5%. He said that the area would be landscaped with Leyland Cyprus trees and pictures of the trees are included in their packets. He said that they are proposing that the church be able to incorporate the area into their 20' required landscaping buffer when they develop their property, Mr. Torbit said that he would not ask City Council to take back any concessions that were discussed by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Torbit said that as long as the landscaped area along the eastern boundary can serve as the church's adjacent landscaping buffer, if and when they develop their property, he would not ask for anything else. Mr. LeBaron said that the difficulties with that requirement is that he is trying to use the buffer on Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 12, 2001 Page 5 of 8- Approved 03/26/00 this PUD to act as a buffer that would be required by an adjacent development that might occur in the future. He said that if the adjacent property owner wants to be relieved of that requirement, they need to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment and seek a variance on the basis that there is already a buffer there and why double the requirement. He said that to ask this development to provide the buffer to the adjacent property when they don't know what is going to happen on the adjacent property in the future shouldn't be done. He said that the adjacent property development plans need to stand on their own. Commissioner Hill asked if it should be stated that it is their intent and hope that the City may consider a future waiver of the landscape buffer for the adjacent property. He said that it may be helpful to clarify their intent without it being binding. Several Commissioners agreed that this developer can't seek relief on adjacent development. Commissioner Gasper asked Mr. Torbit if the church is aware of the difficulty he has in guaranteeing something that is in the future that has to do with their property. Mr. Torbit explained that the church had to be guaranteed the waiver in order for him to negotiate the additional open space. He said that if it cannot be guaranteed then he needs to eliminate that strip of open space and keep the exhibit as it was in the original layout. Chairman Hart said that he sees the Commissions options are: 1) table the case, 2) vote the zoning change down, or 3) allow the developer to have the open space he proposed in the first exhibit. Chairman Hart said that this is a very difficult piece of land to develop. Commissioner Gasper said that she does not see the open space as a problem, because other developments in the area have little to no open space and they can't guarantee what will happen on the adjacent property in the future. Commissioner Hill said that he agreed and appreciates the openness of the developer. Commission Gasper requested to amend her motion to recommend the approval of the zoning change request with the 4.2% open space by eliminating the 20' greenbelt along the church property is not a part of the plan. The developer stated that the Cyprus trees will be planted on the development side of the property, rather than the church side with the elimination of the open space along the eastern border. Commissioner Hill agreed to the amendment. Commissioner Gasper moved that they suspend the rules and open a public hearing. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Hocutt, Hollis, Hill, Hart Noes: None Chairman Hart opened a public hearing for the case. Those present wishing to speak were: Keith Grantham, 222 East Riverside Drive, Suite 208, Austin, Texas, said he was here to represent his mother who owns property on the southwest boundary. He said that he is in favor of a masonry fence to separate six proposed lots from his mother's property. Mr. Grantham said that Mr. Torbit indicated that economics did not allow for a masonry fence at that location, He said that he and his mother were the ones who initially discussed the landscaping for screening. Mr. Grantham said that it was considered that they would have an eight feet wooden fence that was broken by stone or masonry columns and the details were provided in a letter to the Commission dated February 21, 2001. He said that they are not opposed to the PUD in general Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 12, 2001 Page 6 of 8- Approved 03/26/00 terms, they are concerned about the barrier between the six neighbors they are going to have with their backyards abutting theirs. Mr. Grantham said that they want privacy fencing rather than iron fencing and said that the Leyland Cyprus trees will not grow in the heavily wooded area and there is little vegetation that will grow in the shade. He said that privacy cannot be obtained without a wooden fence. Mr. Grantham said that he thinks the developer should carry the burden for providing the privacy. Chairman Hart said that the developer has stated he would provide a wooden privacy fence to abut Mrs. Grantham's property and if the developer could have his way he would want to be consistent with iron fencing for the entire perimeter of the subdivision. Commissioner Gasper said that the motion includes to have the consistency of iron fencing all the way around. Commissioner Hocutt said that he understood that the developer would have iron fencing all the way around where he could grow the Leyland Cyprus trees and where the trees would not grow, homeowners could provide a wooden privacy fence on their side of the iron fence. Mr. Grantham said that lots 4, 5, and 6 would require a privacy fence. Commissioner Hill said that he was not specifically aware of Commissioner Gasper's desire to have wrought iron fencing all the way around the subdivision, and he does not have a strong feeling either way about it. He said that he would not want this issue to become a stumbling block for the passage of a good PUD-R. He said that he would not be opposed to the developer granting the adjacent long time homeowner's request. Mr. Grantham said that his mother's property is not conducive to future development because of the width of the parcel. He said that the current plan does not call for masonry columns and they would request that the Commission consider requiring masonry columns and an appropriate privacy fence adjacent to Mrs. Grantham's property. Commissioner Gasper said that she feels very uncomfortable about a wooden fence along Mrs. Grantham's property, because the wrought iron fence is going to be more attractive in the long run and easier to maintain. She said that the Commission needs to look at what is best for the whole community and having consistency along the boundaries is best. Commissioner Hill said that he does not disagree. He said that he heard Mr. Grantham's comments about supplementing the wooden fence with masonry columns at the end of the hearing and that would make it more of an economic burden on the developer. Mr. Grantham spoke again and said that if the Commissioners drove down Glade Road and looked at the topography of the area, they will see that there is a definite geographic break between the area where the iron fence will be and where the requested wooden fence will be. He said that there is nothing that would not allow them to put their own wooden fence at that location, but they feel that there is a lot of money involved in the proposal and the developer. He said that when the property was originally sold to the owners, property was selling for under 25 cents per square foot and will now go for $5.00 per square foot when developed. He said the developer will have an inventory of homes of about ten million dollars or more and a wooden fence with brick columns along six lots will not be a huge percent of the total budget. He said that he thinks the Commission is making a mistake if they allow the developers to not put some up front money into the project to solve the issue. Mr. Grantham said that he did not think the Commissioners' concerns about having a consistent kind of fencing around the subdivision is warranted because of the very serious geographical difference at this location. Chairman Hart closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hollis said that it comes down to the property owner's right to use the property and it doesn't include any inconsistency in the fencing. He said he doesn't think the Commission can Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 12, 2001 Page 7 of 8- Approved 03/26/00 say that it must be done, but it would be nice if it could be worked out. He said that as the current motion states, a consistent wrought iron fence is worth more to the City in the long run. Commissioner Gasper said that is her feeling and with the landscaping and the possibility of a homeowner putting in a privacy fence for a pool, the wrought iron fencing consistently around the subdivision is best for the City. She said that it is their job to balance the rights of all the property owners, including the rights of the church to sell the property, and the rights of the adjacent property owners to not suffer from development and what is best for the City. Commissioner Hocutt said that he agreed, but if it impractical for Leyland Cyprus to grow in the area, the developer has set aside dollars for the trees and if they won't grow it is a waste. He recommended the parties to get together and use the funds set aside for the trees, it would be helpful. Chairman Hart said the PUD will go to the City Council and they will hold public hearings. Commissioner Hollis asked if there was anyway leave a developer's option in the PUD to leave room for further negotiation and have it go on from the Commission to the Council. Commissioner Gasper said that the current motion regarding fencing there is not an exception for those lots. The developer, Matt Torbit, said that the way he rewrote the revision to the application, he may have been misleading about the Leyland Cyprus, He said that the Leyland Cyprus would be planted only at the openings. Commissioner Gasper said that when the language is written for the ordinance, it needs to be clear that the Leyland Cyprus would not be plated where trees are currently growing. Commissioner Hill told Mr. Grantham that the developer has always offered to place a wooden fence along their property, but they don't agree with that concept. Commissioner Hill said that when a PUD is drafted and you want to allow room for people to negotiate later, but you don't want the developer to be in a position of violating the terms of the PUD by doing that negotiating. Commissioner Gasper said that the PUD-R does not affect what can be done by the adjacent property owners. She said that the one thing that she has seen is that someone put up lattice for screening along the wrought iron fence. She said that she does not see the fence as an economic issue and she requested the wrought iron fence for the benefit of the community. Commissioner Hill said that the developer has offered many features and he would not want to see him have to construct both a wrought iron fence with a privacy fence along side of it. Commissioner Hocutt said that he wanted to talk about open space. The developer, Matt Torbit said that they could offer more open space at the expense of reducing the lot sizes. Commissioner Hocutt said that by providing more open space by adding a 20' wide section of property along the boundary, it does not meet the intent of what is trying to be accomplished with open space. He said that there is no park area and children would not be utilizing the twenty foot area and it is basically a buffer. Commissioner Gasper said that she would rather wait until the church develops the property and allow them to put in the buffer at that point when they know what is going into the area. Commissioner Gasper said that there would be a wrought iron fence with Leyland Cyprus trees on the inside of the fence and it will give the impression of being open. Commissioner Hocutt said that there is a masonry fence adjacent to Glade Road. He asked if the wrought iron fence will go all the way to Glade Road or stop at the masonry fence. Mr. Torbit said that the metal fence was not intended to fence off the open area. He also said that they were proposing R40 front setbacks to give the subdivision a more open feeling to the streetscape. He said that the wrought iron fence would stop at the buildable lots, Lot 19 would have the iron fence and Lot 20 would not be fenced in on the eastern boundary. Commissioner Hocutt asked if the Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 12, 2001 Page 8 of 8- Approved 03/26/00 church would be agreeable to that scenario because it would put a pond with easy access from their recreation fields and safety may be compromised. Chairman Hart said that this was the same plan that they originally had except for the sprinklers and the wrought iron fencing all the way around and people from the church were in favor of the plan. Barry LeBaron recapped that there is a motion by Commissioner Gasper and a second by Commissioner Hill to approve the request as submitted adding language regarding the perimeter wrought iron fence and language saying that all houses shall be sprinkled. He said that the motion was amended by Commissioner Gasper and agreed to by Commissioner Hill to reduce to open space to the original 4.2% by removing the 20' greenbelt along the eastern boarder. Commissioner Hollis stated that there will be no assurances to the church of any use of the property. The developer said that that was acceptable to him. Chairman Hart stated that they have a motion to approve case Z-01-005 with the amendments as stated into the record by Barry LeBaron. He called for a vote. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Hocutt, Hollis, Hill, Hart Noes: None 6. Citizens' comments regarding items not on the agenda: There were none. 7. Staff comments, reports and discussion items: The Commissioners welcomed Barry back. 8. Commissioners' comments and reports: They asked for a report on the health of the staff. ADJOURNMENT: The Commission moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. The motion was seconded and passed by acclamation. Respectfully Submitted, Levy lanning & ZOning Assistant Approved on: March 26,2001 NOTE: As a matter of public record, an audio recording of the above Planning and Zoning Commission meeting is available upon request.