Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Minutes-1/28/2002 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - January 28, 2002 Chairman Gasper called the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 7:00 P.M. on January 28, 2002. Roll Call: Present: Jeffrey Wall, Bob Culley, Earl Swift, Mark Jones, Bud Sellers, Mark Hollis, Jo Ann Gasper Staff: Clayton Husband and Jan Levy Invocation: Commissioner Wall Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Minutes: January 14, 2002 Chairman Gasper requested that the following statement be added to item #3: Chairman Gasper asked why the ordinance was not signed by the Mayor (Newton). Staff responded that they did not know; however, the ordinance was noted that it became law after 7 days if not vetoed by the Mayor. Chairman Gasper also requested that a statement in item #7 be changed as follows: Councilperson Dana Feldman was requested by the Chairman to answer questions regarding the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Hollis moved to approve the minutes of January 14, 2002 as amended by Chairman Gasper. Commissioner Wall seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None 1. PUBLIC HEARING - Zoning Change from R40 Residential to AG Agricultural requested by Craig Gandy on Lot 1, Block 1, Meadow Lake Addition, located at 1117 W L.D. Lockett Road, Case Z-02-006 Clayton Husband presented the case to the commissioners he told them City Council directed staff to contact the applicant to request the property be rezoned from R40 to AG Agricultural and that is the reason they are considering this zoning change request. He said the property exceeds the requirements of the AG district and that zoning district would allow the proposed use as a commercial equestrian boarding facility. He said that Council has tabled Mr. Gandy's request for a special use permit for an accessory building until the zoning change for AG zoning comes before them for consideration. Clayton said staff sent notice to the surrounding property owners to inform them of the current zoning change request. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - January 28, 2002 Page 1 of 8- Approved on February 11, 2002 Commissioner Hollis asked questions about the status of the special use permit. Clayton responded that the special use permit request for the building does not have an impact on the base zoning of the property. He said it is a separate case and would be reconsidered by City Council when the AG zoning district request comes before them. Commissioner Wall asked about the property to the south of Mr. Gandy's land. Mr. Husband explained that the land to the south is vacant property and the City of Hurst boundary line is farther to the south. Chairman Gasper explained this zoning change request for AG was because the use of the property was not proper in the R40 district. She said the AG district permits the use and clears the use to be agricultural. She said that Council tabled the special use permit until the AG zoning case catches up. Chairman Gasper opened the public hearing. There was no one present wishing to speak. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hollis moved to recommend approval of the zoning change request from R40 to AG. Commissioner Sellers seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None 2. PUBLIC HEARING - Amendments to the Colleyville Land Development Code to establish regulations for tents to be used as temporary structures, requested by The City of Colleyville, Case Z-02-004 Clayton Husband presented the case to the commissioners and reviewed the staff briefing. He spoke about: A permit is required; The tent must be incidental to use of the primary building; A permit is valid for 30 days; No more than 3 permits are allowed per year and they cannot be back- to-back; and Tents must comply with the Building Code and the Fire Code. Commissioner Hollis asked if anyone in Colleyville had used tents in the past for a pumpkin patch or Christmas tree sales. Clayton Husband said that someone with a vacant lot would not qualify to use a tent because the tent is incidental to the primary building. Commissioner Hollis asked about sales tax from Christmas tree sales and pumpkin sales. Chairman Gasper said that vacant lot sales under tents would not be allowed. She asked how church revival tents have been handled in the past and how will the revision impact church revival tents. Mr. Husband responded that they would be handled the same way and the fire department would do an inspection to make sure the tents meet codes. She asked what the provisions for Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - January 28, 2002 Page 2 of 8- Approved on February f f, 2002 notifying affected parties that there may be a change in the way they do business. Clayton explained the State statutes regarding notifications to the zoning ordinances and how the public hearing for an item like this is advertised in the newspaper. He said if they sent notification, they would almost have to send it to every property owner in the City. Chairman Gasper opened the public hearing. Those present wishing to speak were: Richard Myers, 300 Lloyd Circle, spoke in favor. He said it is a good idea to provide regulations for tents and formalize the criteria. There was no one else present wishing to speak. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sellers asked about the tent that was set up at the business next to Bellisimo's. Clayton responded that is one of the reasons the change to the Code is being proposed. Commissioner Culley asked about retail sales tax collection for articles being sold under a tent. Clayton Husband said that a sales tax certificate would be required and the tax would have to be reported. Commissioner Culley moved to recommend approval of the amendment to the Code by approving regulations for tents as temporary structures. Commissioner Wall seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None 3. PUBLIC HEARING - Amendments to Section 3.25 of the Colleyville Land Development Code regarding Special Use Permit regulations, Case Z-02-005 Clayton Husband presented the case to the commissioners and reviewed the staff briefing. He spoke about: Procedures for approval; 1-year time frame is condition of approval; If use is vacated for 6-month period, a new SUP is required to do the same use; and Changes require an amendment to the sup. He said that staff researched surrounding communities and how they handled their SUP's. He said some use an expiration date on the approving ordinances and if within the one year time frame a building permit had not been applied for or the SUP expires, or if they are moving into a lease space, they have one year to get their certificate of occupancy. He said sometime what may be an appropriate use today, might not be in 5 to 6 years, so the city would have an opportunity to re-evaluate the type of use at a given location. Commissioner Hollis asked what would happen in the case of a zoning change that included a special use permit. He asked what happens when there is a PUD and a special use permit. Mr. Husband said that a PUD is a little different in the respect it is an actually zoning district with Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - January 28, 2002 Page 3 of 8- Approved on February 11, 2002 different standards that go along with that category. Chairman Gasper asked if it would be possible to have the PUD's follow the same rules as the SUP's? She said the PUD that was for institutional use was problematic because the church was not able to build and there was an institutional use hanging out there, which was an attraction to a non-taxable use. Clayton Husband responded that it goes back to the issue that PUD is an actual zoning district and the State statutes are very specific on how zoning can be changed. He said there needs to be public hearings and notifications and takes an act by the City Council by ordinance to actually change zoning on a property. He said special use permits are a little different in that they don't change any zoning on a property, but are used for authorization for a use and it doesn't change the base zoning on a property. Chairman Gasper asked if when the Commission is considering a PUD as part of the ordinance, can they not put a sunset provision that they have to build or commit within a certain amount of time, otherwise it reverts back to the original zoning category? Clayton Husband said it comes down to legislative authority and the law does not allow the Council to defer legislative authority to someone else or some action. He said they would have to vote to change the zoning and that would require going through the process of advertisement, notification, and public hearings. Commissioner Hollis asked if in the case a business wanted a PUD zoning category and requested a SUP for a certain use and they don't build, would it be wrong to combine the two together or is it a special use within the PUD? Clayton Husband said there may be some PUD categories that may have written within them requirements for special use permits for certain types of uses and that could be compared to any other zoning categories with special use permits attached to them. Chairman Gasper said that if they had a PUD with a special use permit embedded in the ordinance then they would not be able to remove the SUP because it would be part of the ordinance that was passed. Clayton responded that it depends on how the ordinance is written that adopts the planned unit development. He said the way he's been doing them the last 2% years does not really tie the special use permits to any base zoning category and just lists the set parameters for land uses, setbacks, lot coverage, landscaping, and whatever may be a part of it. He said if anyone wants to change any of those requirements, they make an application to amend the ordinance. He said there is no automatic expiration to any of those items because they run with the property. Chairman Gasper said she wanted to be sure and offered the following scenario: There is a PUD for cleaners with a drive-thru and part of the PUD has criteria for landscaping and other requirements. She said that the drive-thru is permitted by the PUD and does not have a special use permit, then the drive-thru would run with the PUD because it is an ordinance. Clayton Husband said if the PUD specifically says the drive-thru is for a dry cleaner then it can only be used for that specific use and if it isn't built and if someone wants to build something different, they would have to amend the PUD. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - January 28, 2002 Page 4 of 8- Approved on February 11, 2002 Chairman Gasper said the change they are considering tonight will not affect a PUD where within the PUD they are granting what would otherwise require a special use permit. Commissioner Hollis said that only stand-alone special use permits would be affected by the ordinance they are considering. Clayton Husband told the Commission that the City Council always has had the option to initiate zoning on any property within the City of Colleyville. Commissioner Hollis asked if this amendment to the Code passes, should they use it carefully and maybe separate some ofthe PUD items and the special use permits to give them some expiration while still keeping the rest of the PUD alive. Clayton said the proposed amendment would not limit their option to do that. Chairman Gasper said she thinks when this item goes to the City Council, one of the issues that needs to be addressed to the City Council is can they within a PUD ordinance grant a SUP that is going to fall under the amendment and a SUP would be operative rather than the PUD. Clayton said unless a PUD ordinance states otherwise, it would still fall under the proposed requirements. Commissioner Hollis suggested that the approving body could have two votes, one for the PUD and another for the SUP. Clayton said if there is an existing PUD with SUP requirements for certain things, they would have to go forward and make an application for the special use permit for those certain activities and would still be subject to the amendment requirements. He said if they authorize a use by right within the PUD then it does not become a special use permit at that point and a time limit cannot be established. He said they need to think of PUD's the same as the CC-1 category and time limits cannot be established on zoning districts. Chairman Gasper opened the public hearing. There was no one present wishing to speak. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hollis moved to recommend approval ofthe amendments regarding special use permit regulations, Case Z-02-005. Commissioner Culley seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None 4. An Amended Plat of Lot 35R, The Village at Colleyville, requested by Tom Wouters, Realty Capital Village #1 L.P., located at 85 Village Lane, Case P-02-003 Clayton Husband presented the case to the commissioners and told them the location of the lot and the purpose of the amended plat. He reviewed the staff briefing and told them there needed to be a greater separation between the two buildings to comply with fire regulations and code. He said 4' of the right-of-way will be absorbed into the lot and this will not create any visibility problems nor will it affect the location of the existing water line, sewer line, and storm drains Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - January 28, 2002 Page 5 of 8- Approved on February 11, 2002 located within the public right-of-way. Clayton displayed an exhibit that clearly showed the location of streets and sidewalks. Commissioner Sellers asked if the amended plat was being done for parking purposes. Clayton replied it was being done for the purpose of separating the buildings. The applicant was present and the Commission had no questions for the applicant. Commissioner Culley moved to approve the amended plat. Commissioner Wall seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None 5. Citizens' comments regarding items not on the agenda: There were none. 6. Staff comments, reports and discussion items: Clayton Husband informed the commissioners there is an upcoming agenda item for a replat within the Village at Colleyville that is associated with the City Hall/Library project and relocated some rights-of-way. He said he left informational articles at their places relating to planning and he hoped they found them interesting. Chairman Gasper said they did find them interesting. Commissioner Culley thanked Clayton for his work on the Web Site, as it is helpful for his preparation for Commission meetings. 7. Commissioners' comments and reports. Chairman Gasper told the commissioners that she asked Mr. LeBaron when issues are being brought forward in the future that staff indicates specifically if there are any traffic issues they should be aware of and any drainage issues so they will have them upfront and the commissioners will be prepared to discuss those issues. Commissioner Wall said there's been some comment about the Master Plan and he asked what staff's thinking is as far as re-Iooking at the Master Plan and if it is on the calendar for this year and what the timetable is. He asked if there will be citizen committee involvement or if that is for the Council to decide. Clayton Husband replied updates to the Master Plan are for Council to decide and they would direct staff to establish some kind of time frame for it. He said updates to the Master Plan were proposed in last year's budget and staff has not started to do anything yet. He said the first thing that will probably happen is to set up some kind of organization for how the Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - January 28, 2002 Page 6 of 8- Approved on February 11, 2002 process will work and how long it may take and the procedures for citizen involvement. He said staff would do most changes because of the budget constraints. He said to really do something significant to the Master Plan, it could take 12 to 18 months from start to finish. Chairman Gasper said the last time the commission met as a body they discussed financial disclosure rules being proposed and she represented the Commission to the Council saying they had concerns about the trust. She said it seemed like City Council did hear those concerns and they're trying to revise the language so whatever has to be reported for a trust will only be those items which would be reportable if they were not in the trust. She said Council did recognize that the Commission's concerns were valid and they appreciated the comments. Commissioner Swift said he has another point on the Master Plan. He said that changing the Master Plan has become a huge issue for the community and he is not criticizing staff, but it comes back to City Council to provide that direction and the scope of changes to the Master Plan. He requested that the minutes reflect the discussion about changes to the Master Plan. He said there are so many problems in the community that are fundamentally tied to the Master Plan, like where do we want the community to go and every problem is a domino effect. Commissioner Swift said one of the problems is traffic and another is how to deal with the density issue. He said those items need to come to the table and there are many things happening in the community in the form of residential developments that are exacerbating that basic issue. Clayton Husband said the last Master Plan was adopted in 1998 and communities need to look at their plans every four to five years depending on the growth patterns. Commissioner Swift said the last Master Plan was not really established in 1998 and the last one was really established in 1991 or 1992. He said the 1998 Master Plan is 10 pages long and is a very superficial plan. Clayton Husband said it is primarily a statement of goals and objectives and there was a Land Use Plan and a Thoroughfare Plan that went along with it. Commissioner Swift said the community needs something in much greater depth than that. Clayton said staff is proposing to do what is considered a more traditional kind of Master Plan that gets into goals and objectives, population growth and where it is going to occur, transportation issues, economic development issues and whatever else needs to be considered. Commissioner Swift said it is currently approaching February 1st and by time they get the infrastructure rolling and the topic addressed, before they know it, it will be June 1st and nothing is going to happen. He said this Commission, staff, and the City Council needs to meet to step up to the issue. Clayton Husband said when staff receives the direction; they will start work on the Master Plan revisions. Commissioner Wall said he likes Commissioner Swift's recommendation and asked if they could put it in the form of some kind of a motion to the City Council from the Planning & Zoning Commission if there is a consensus that they would urge City Council to move forward on this issue? Chairman Gasper responded that idea is very good; however, they do not have it on the agenda as far as an item to vote on. She suggested that an item be placed on the next agenda to propose a resolution going forward to City Council encouraging the Master Plan to be looked at Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - January 28, 2002 Page 7 of 8- Approved on February 11, 2002 and the sooner the better. Clayton Husband said the Commission needs to place the item on an upcoming agenda if they want to act as a body. He said individually, they could pursue the matter however they want. Commissioner Gasper said it is the sense of the Commission that they would like to have an item to be considered at the next meeting dealing with the Master Plan. ADJOURNMENT: The Commission moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 p.m. The motion was seconded and passed by acclamation. Respectfully Submitted, Jan Levy Planning & Zoning Assistant Approved on: February 11,2002 as submitted. 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 - January 28, 2002 Page 8 of 8- Approved on Febl'llary 11, 2002