Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 06/13/2018MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 13, 2018 PRESENT: Jerry Beaver Jack Browne David cook Rick Graham Blake Haney Krystal James, Vice -Chairperson Steve Lane Rodney Martin, Chairperson Mark McBurnett Cayce Wendeborn Bobby Whiteley, Council Liaison James McKechnie, Senior Assistant City Attorney Paul Menzies, Assistant City Manager Dana Schoening, Community development Director Karen Gagne, Planning Administrator Skyler Henricks, Planning Technician Bobby Teague, Assistant Com. Dev't Dir/Chief Building Official Rita Miller, Housing & Code Administrator ASSENT: Lynda Cannedy Anthony Inman I. CALL To ORDER ♦ Members ♦ *Alternate #2 ♦ ♦ Alternate #1 ! Ex-Officio ♦ Legal Dept ♦ city staff ♦ ♦ The meeting was called to order by Chairperson, Mr. Rodney Martin, at 2:00 p.m. Chairperson Martin proceeded to make the following comments: a. This meeting is being televised live on Channel 1 1. It will be replayed at 2:00 p.m. daily including Saturday and Sunday until the next live meeting is aired which will be the second Wednesday of next month at 2:00 p.m. b. Motions made by the commission members include all staff recommendations and developmental requirements listed in the staff report. Any deviations will be discussed on a case -by -case basis and voted on accordingly. c. Applicants and citizens who wish to address the commission or answer questions from the commission members are asked to please speak into the microphone at the podium. This meeting is being taped and there is no microphone to record statements made from the audience. Planning and Zoning June 13, 2018 d. Please silence all cell phones during the meeting. If it is necessary for you to have a cell phone conversation during the meeting, please use the hallway outside this room. II. ROLL CALL Chairperson Martin roll called commission members, welcomed David Cook as an alternate member to the commission and introduced the city staff including Skyler Henricks as the new Planning Technician. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Cayce Wendeborn introduced a motion to approve the May 9, 2018 minutes. Ms. Krystal James seconded the motion. Ms. Karen Gagne stated there may be some minor revisions. Mr. Jack Browne said that on page 3 of the May minutes, #2 Case C18-13, the word carport should be removed. Also at the bottom of page 7, the sentence should read "Ms. James would like to see people use trend and then track it." instead of having the word tract in the sentence. Motion made to amend minutes by Mr. Jack Browne and seconded by Ms. Krystal James. The motion was passed. V. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the consent agenda to be placed on the regular agenda. Ms. Krystal James made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Ms. Cayce Wendeborn seconded the motion. Motion carried and consent agenda approved. The Planning and Zoning Commission took a short recess. VI. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Case P 18-01 - Notification Plat: Proposal to replat 1721 & 1723 Eagle Ridge Circle, Lot 11 and 12, Block 2, Eagle Ridge subdivision. Applicant: Dennis & Deborah Wadsworth/Corlett, Probst & Boyd, PLLC Nis. Cayce Wendeborn made a motion to approve. Ms. Krystal James seconded. Ms. Karen Gagne presented the case. The property was north of Seymour Highway, off Turtle Creek Road, west of Canyon Trails and south of Tanglewood. The property owner, the Wadsworth's have applied to replat 2 vacant residential lots in that development which would combine them into 1 lot moving forward for development. Staff notified 35 property owners within the required 290ft notification area and received approximately 83% response rate in favor of the replat. No responses were received in opposition or undecided. Planning and Zoning 3 June 13, 2018 Section 212.015 (a) of the Local Government code requires public notification for any replat that: 1. During the preceding five years, any of the area to be replatted was limited by an interim or permanent zoning classification to residential use for not more than two residential units per lot; or 2. Any lot in the preceding plat was limited by deed restrictions to residential use for not more than two residential units per lot. The staff recommended approval of this notification plat with the following conditions provided by the Plats committee: a. The property is served by public water and sewer. (Public Works) b. All access points to state roadways shall be approved by TxDOT. (TxDOT) Chairperson Martin asked the applicant if they would like to speak or make a presentation. They did not. He then asked if there was anyone from the audience that wanted to speak. The case was closed for public discussion and opened for discussion by the commission. There were no comments. He called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed. 2. Case C 18-17 — 2126 Richmond Drive Consider taking action on a conditional use to allow a carport in the required front setback in a Single -Family 2 Residential (SF-2) zoning district. Applicant: Falls Concrete / Lard Jacoby Ms. Krystal James made a motion to approve. Ms. Cayce Wendeborn seconded. Ms. Karen Gagne presented the case. The property owner, Larri Jacoby, submitted an application for approval to construct a 21 ft x 16ft carport in the front setback of the lot at 2126 Richmond Drive, located in the Nelson Stone Addition, east of Allen Rd., between Seymour Hwy. and Seymour Rd. carport placement will result in a 16ft front setback and a 1 4ft interior side yard setback. The surrounding neighborhood is residential and zoned for Single Family-2 (SF-2). During the case preparation, there were 22 properties notified of the proposed carport. Staff received a 27.27% response rate; 6 responded in favor and none that were opposed or undecided. Upon conducting a site analysis of the area, there were 2 existing front -yard carports identified within the 200-ft notification area. The example carport is metal and at 2122 Richmond, 2 lots north of the subject property. This carport must adhere to the City's basic minimum standards for construction of either metal or combustible carports and if approved, there will be final site plan review at the time of obtaining a building permit from Building Planning and Zoning 4 June 13, 2018 Inspections Department. The staff recommended the approval of the carport proposal for 2126 Richmond. Chairperson Martin asked the applicant if they would like to speak or make a presentation. They did not. He then asked if there was anyone from the audience that wanted to speak. The case was closed for public discussion and opened for discussion by the Commission. There were no additional comments. He called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed. 3. Case C 18-18 — 4733 Cape Cod Consider taking action on a conditional use to allow a carport in the front yard setback in a Single Family-2 Residential (SF-2) zoning district. Applicant: Rodney Peters I Marilyn Ewen Ms. Cayce Wendeborn made a motion to approve_ Ms. Krystal James seconded. Ms. Karen Gagn6 presented the case. The property owner, Marilyn Ewen is seeking approval to construct a 20 x 24ft carport in the front setback of her property at 4733 Cape Cod, located in the University Park Addition east of Barnett Rd and south of Southwest Pkwy. Carport placement will result in a 14.5 foot front property setback and a 3.5ft interior side yard setback. The surrounding neighborhood is residential and zoned Single Family-2 (SF--2). Upon conducting a site analysis of the area, there was only 1 existing front -yard carport identified within the Zoo-ft notification area but an additional 2 carports in the general vicinity (4723 Cape Cod & at Trinidad/Jamaica Drive). The example carport is metal and at 4741 Cape Cod; 4 lots to the south. This carport must adhere to the City's basic minimum standards for construction of either metal or combustible carports and if approved, there will be final site plan review at the time of obtaining a building permit from Building Inspections Department. The staff recommended the approval of the carport proposal for 4733 Cape Cod. During case preparation, there were 26 properties notified of the proposed carport. Staff received an 11.5% response rate; 3 responded in favor; none were opposed or undecided. Chairperson Martin asked the applicant or owner if they would like to speak or make a presentation. They did not. He then asked if there was anyone from the audience that wanted to speak. The case was closed for public discussion and opened for discussion by the Commission. There were no additional comments. He called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed. 4. Case C 18-19 —1618 Red Fox Consider taking action to allow a carport in the front yard setback in a Single -Family 2 Residential (SF-2) zoning district. Planning and Zoning 5 June 13, 2018 Applicant: Antoinette Brown ! Contractor: Nick Hurd Ms. Krystal James made a motion to approve. Ms. Cayce Wendeborn seconded. Ms. Karen Gagne presented the case to the commission. The property owner, Antoinette Brown, is requesting approval to construct a 20 x loft carport in the front setback of her property at 1618 Red Fox, situated in the East Lynwood Neighborhood. Carport placement will still maintain a front yard setback of just over 9ft along with a aft interior side yard setback. The surrounding neighborhood is zoned for regular lot residential being - Single-Family-2 (SF-2). During case preparation, there were 28 properties notified of the proposed carport. Planning received a 17.9% response rate; 4 responded in favor and 1 responded in opposition noting potential concerns of overcrowding on the lot and how owners of 1616 & 1620 (abutting subject property) felt about the proposal and the impact on the value of the residence in the future. Upon conducting a site analysis of the area, there were 2 front -yard carports identified within the 200-ft notification area; immediately across the street at 1621 Red Fox and down the street at Las Cruces & Red Fox. The example carport was 2709 Ridgeway Drive. This carport must adhere to the City's basic minimum standards for construction of either metal or combustible carports and if approved, there will be final site plan review at the time of obtaining a building permit from Building Inspections Department. Staff recommended approval of the carport proposal for 1618 Red Fox. Chairperson Martin asked the applicant/contractor if they would like to speak or make a presentation. The contractor, Mr. Hurd, did not wish to speak. Mr. Martin then asked if there was anyone from the audience that wanted to speak. The case was closed for public discussion and opened for discussion by the Commission. There were no additional comments. He called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed. 5. case C 18-1 — 5112 Catskills Drive Consider taking action to allow a duplex in a Single Family-2 Residential (SF-2) zoning district. Applicant: Ricardo Sandoval Ms. Krystal James made a motion to approve. Ms. Cayce Wendeborn seconded. Ms. Karen Gagne presented the case to the commission. The property owner, Ricardo Sandoval, is seeking approval to develop a duplex — two residential units - on a vacant residentially zoned lot at 5112 Catskills, located in the University Park Addition, south of Johnson Road and west of Cypress/Rider High School. The proposed single -story duplex will consist of 2,811 sq ft on a 0.2 acre lot or 8,712 sq ft lot; each unit will have 1,405 sq ft of living area and there will be space at the front of the property for 4 parking spaces, as required. This Planning and Zoning 6 June 13, 2018 property and the surrounding neighborhood are zoned for residential Single Family-2 (SF-2) development which does allow for duplexes if approved through the conditional use process. Reviewing minimum standards for the SF-2 Zone: 5,000 sq ft lot area; building coverage 50% maximum (approx. 33% building coverage) the proposed duplex will comply_ During the case preparation, there were 19 property owners notified of the proposed infill duplex. Planning received a total response rate of 21 %; 15.8% of respondents (3 responses) were opposed to the duplex and 1 was undecided (5.26%). The opposition related to: not wanting a duplex in a single-family residential zone; concerns about lowering appraised values of surrounding properties; the unknown of who the duplex will be marketed to for the inhabitants; prefer vacant lot or build single-family dwelling; drainage ditch concerns and need for it to be maintained — owner at corner Sierra Madre and Catskills has to clean it out; need ditch to avoid property being flooded by water runoff. Upon conducting research and a site analysis of the area, homes in the 200ft notification area and vicinity varied is total square footage ranging from 1,300sq ft to upwards of 2,600 sq ft; so the residential units at 1,405sq ft are in -line with those in the neighborhood. In addition, until June 2011, there was a single- family; 2-car garage house on the subject property which was demolished with a council order to code enforcement due to the dilapidated condition of the structure. Staff provided photos from Code/Building Inspection showing the structural damage where the house was sinking into the center of the structure, holes through the brick veneer and the east wall shifting away from the foundation, etc. Additional staff analysis regarding infrastructure (sewer, water and storm drainage) was conducted via consultation with Public Works/Engineering regarding utility capacity for a duplex project and there was sufficient infrastructure already in place to address any sewer/water service. It was also determined that by constructing this duplex it would not cause additional impacts or exacerbate the existing storm water drainage runoff. There is a storm water drainage easement on the abutting property to the north. Staff provided the Commission with photos of a similar duplex in Faith Village that obtained conditional use approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission in 2016. This example of an infill duplex design at 2947 Cunningham was in an established neighborhood and consisted of 2,080 sq ft (each unit - 1,040 sq ft). The proposed duplex dwelling must adhere to the City's basic minimum standards for development (SF-2 Zone setbacks, building coverage, parking requirements and any special conditions assigned by the P&Z commission) and construction and if approved, will require site plan review prior to obtaining a building permit from Building Inspections Department. Planning and Zoning 7 June 13, 2018 Based on the building form/site design proposal, conformance with development/ zoning regulations, research into infrastructure/utility capacity and neighborhood characteristics, the staff recommended approval of the proposed infill, duplex at 5112 Catskills. Chairperson Martin asked the applicant if they would like to speak or make a presentation. The owner, Ricardo Sandoval, wanted to address the 21% response rate and concerns indicated by residents. He stated that it was not his intention to build something and then not care for it. He said that he is invested in the city and it is his intention to live in one side of the duplex and rent the other unit. Mr. Martin then asked if there was anyone from the audience that wanted to speak. The case was closed for public discussion and opened for discussion by the Commission. There was considerable discussion among the commission regarding appropriateness of allowing duplexes in established single-family residential neighborhoods. Mr. Sandoval answered questions from the Commission regarding alternative proposals, noting that unlike the example duplex p p ex on Cunningham, this project would include windows in the front fagade facing Catskills and parking would not take up the entire front yard. He commented that a final alternative would be to construct a single family home but the duplex would allow him to Jive on -site and have the option to rent the other unit. Mr. Martin called for a vote on the motion. The Commission members voted: 5 voted in favor and 4 voted in opposition so the motion passed. 6. Temporary Storage Units Consider taking action on a proposed ordinance regulating StorageTemporary Units; text amendment ent to the Code of ordinances under Chapter 46 Environment; and other provisions incidental and related to the purpose of this ordinance. Ms. Krystal James made a motion to approve. Ellis. Cayce Wendeborn seconded. Mr. Dana Schoening acknowledged the commission members and stated that the proposed ordinance began as a discussion item January 10, 2018. It was brought back for additional discussion March 14, 2018. He stated this proposed ordinance for temporary storage was placed on the agenda of the City Council on April 31d. The Council pulled the item and would like for the Planning and Zoning Commission to give it an official recommendation. It was brought back to g the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 0, 2018. There was good discussion of proposed provisions for a draft Temporary Storage Units Ordinance. Today we are asking to consider and officially recommend a proposed ordinance for Temporary Storage Units. This proposed ordinance has changed considerably from the beginning. Mr. Schoeningreviewed the(TSU) definition of temporary storage unit that will be in the ordinance. Temporary Storage Unit means transportable units designed and used primarily for temporary storage of building materials, household goods, and personal items for use on a limited basis on a property. This definition does not include those portable units used in the removal of municipal solid waste or licensed vehicle. Mr. Schoening stated currently our city doesn't have an ards of r y provisions for TSU's in front -yards residential properties. The big issue �s the length of time a temporary storage unit currently is on property where there is no provision to allow for it. There are a few that have been out there a while and there is nothing to regulate this ordinance. We have to treat it right now as an Planning and Zoning 8 June 13, 2018 .. r accessory building. We have tried to get an ordinance in place before we can enforce that. The modifications of proposed changes from the last time the ordinance was presented before the commission are: • Temporary storage unit regulated on residential properties only; • Not more than one temporary storage unit per residential property may be permitted. This has been removed. The new proposal will allow for more than one. • One temporary storage unit may be permitted per dwelling per multi -family residential property, • Temporary storage unit shall be placed on driveway surface or area recognized as a driveway surface. We have been looking at front yard areas but added exterior side yard locations which was not in the previous proposal; • Temporary storage unit not located in any part of a fire lane, maneuvering lane, any public right-of-way, public sidewalk, visibility triangle or impair sight distance; • Temporary storage unit located only on a lot with primary residential structure; • A temporary storage unit must not exceed a 160-square feet footprint nor have a height greater than 9.5 ft; we removed the 160-square feet footprint and kept the 9.5 ft height. As long as the placement requirements are met, there can be more than one on the property. • Temporary storage unit not placed for longer than 60 days in a 365-day period; This did not change. • Temporary storage unit allowed on property for duration of a building permit; This has been removed. The 15 day extension can be provided by the building official under any particular circumstances has been removed. • Ordinance requirements may be waived by a building official in the event of a declaration of natural disaster by City Council. • The permit required for the placement has been removed. There is no permit required for a TSU. A business may provide that service for a residential property owner or tenant. When a code enforcement officer sees a TSU for a certain time period, they would send a sixty (60) day letter to remove the TSU which would be sixty (60) days from receipt of the letter. Chairperson Martin asked if there was anyone from the audience that wanted to speak. Mr. Mickey Fincannon of MiBox questioned about putting a TSU in the back driveway out of sight of the public. Mr. Schoening stated that it is okay if the area is on an improved surface. Mr. Martin said to amend the verbiage to clarify the location of a TSU on a primary drive surface. Mr. Fincannon then asked about putting a TSU on a vacant lot and he has a customer that bought a vacant lot from the city then placed a MIBox on it. Mr. Martin said it became an accessory structure. Ms. Gagne stated that in order to have an accessory Planning and Zoning 9 June 13, 2018 building, there must be a primary building. The lot could be replatted and have a primary structure added. Mr. Fincannon asked about the ability to get a permit for commercial businesses to place a TSU on residential property. Mr. Martin said that it was not permitted on residential property. Mr. Fincannon wants the time frame to be longer than the proposed 60 day limit. The case was closed for public discussion and opened for discussion b the Cornmiy Commission. There was considerable discussion amongst the commission. Ms. Cayce Wendeborn asked if there could be a registration process without a permit or fe e Mr. Martin said that it could only be done through the permitting process and Mr. Schoening stated that it would have to be logged somehow in a software program. There was discussion regarding the 60 day time limit. Ms. Rita Miller clarified code Enforcement process. Ms. Krystal James asked about insurance covering property in a TSU. Mr. Fincannon with MiBox stated that a homeowner's policy or renter's insurance will cover theft of property in a TSU. There was discussion among the commission and staff regarding the language to amend the ordinance. Chairperson Markin would like the language adjusted in order for the Commission to make a recommendation to the council. Mr. James McKechnie stated that number 3 of the draft ordinance should be amended to include the wording of primary drive surface. Mr. Rick Graham stated that he didn't see anything in the draft ordinance regarding a natural emergency. There could be a fire or flood or a water pipe could burst and flood a home. Insurance adjusters take a long time to make a determination and there is a need to store items somewhere during clean up and restoration. Mr. McKechnie said it had been removed. Mr. Martin said that there are other options, i.e., e unitsself-storage and was opposed to changing the ordinance for this item. Mr. Bobby Y Teague e stated that the council historically has issued exemptions on permit fees or put in a temporary ordinance to cover whatever they need to cover during a natural disaster. Mr. Martin called for a motion to make an amendment to the ordinance to clarify the location of TSU on a primary drive surface. Ms. Cayce Wendeborn made a motion to approve and Ms. Krystal James seconded the motion. Mr. Martin called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed. Mr. Martin asked if there were any other comments on taking action to make a recommendation to City Council on this ordinance with the amended verbiage that was just passed. Ms. Krystal James stated 60 day time period was too restrictive to do what they need to do. Ms. Cayce Wendeborn disagreed with Ms. James saying that anything over 60 days is not temporary. Ms. James disagreed and said there were lots of issues that need longer time period to address them. Mr. Martin stated that they were trying to discourage long term storage on residential properties and that 60 days was sufficient; any longer is not considered temporary and alternate arrangements should be made. Mr. Steve Lane liked the ordinance as written saying it was workable and doable and commended the city staff. Ms. Wendeborn and Mr. Martin agreed with Mr. Lane. Mr. Martin called for a vote to recommend the draft Temporary Storage Unit ordinance move forward for City Council s review and consideration. The i Planning and Zoning 10 June 13, 2018 Commissioners voted: 8 voted in favor and 1 voted in opposition. The vote passed. 0 VII. OTHER BUSINESS 1. City Council Updates There were no City Council updates. 2. Project/Commission Updates Ms. Gagn6 indicated no updates at this time. Vlll. ADJOURN e meeting adjourned at 3:33 p.m. Rodney Martin, Chairperson ATTEST: ana ticnoening, uept. oT uommunny ueveiopmeni -7 - ( ( - Zer' ta Date 7 Date