Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 05/11/2011MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
May 11, 2011
PRESENT:
L. O. Nelson, Chairman
John Harmon
John Kidwell
Deborah Morrow
Vicky Payne
Ripley Tate
R. C. Taylor
John Stephenson
Mary Ward
Miles Risley, City Attorney
Kinley Hegglund, Senior Assist. City Attorney
Norm Standerfer
Marty Odom, Planner
Leo Bethge, Planner
Diane Parker
ABSENT:
Larry Ash
Warren Gardner
I. CALL TO ORDER
♦ Members
♦ Alternate #1
•
♦ Council Liaison
♦ Legal Depart.
♦ City Staff
•
♦ Members
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Nelson at 2:00 p.m. Chairman Nelson then
proceeded to make the following comments:
a. This meeting is being broadcast live on Channel 11. 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.
REGEI`JEI; ':i`�
CITY GLEyRK`S OFFICE
DATE. (D —/0-11
BY: _....__-_ — TIM E: t!",�
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 2 MAY 11, 2011
d. Please silence all cell phone ringers 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. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one from the audience wished to address the Commission.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Taylor made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 9, 2011 meeting; Mr. Tate
seconded. The motion carried.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
Public Hearing on Final Plats
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the following plats subject to the
Standard Conditions of Approval for Final Plats and Replats and any specific conditions listed:
Standard Conditions of Approval for Final Plats
Provide utility and drainage easements as required by utility companies and Director of
Public Works.
Submit water and sewer plans; street; sidewalk; and drainage plans to the Director of
Public Works and water plans to the Fire Marshall. Drainage plans must be complete
enough to include impact on surrounding property and include detention facilities as
required by Director of Public Works.
Coordinate street lighting plan and provide utility easements as required by the Director
of Traffic & Transportation.
Note: Approval of a plat does not imply approval of development of property in violation
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Expressway East Industrial District, Unit 2, Lot 2, Tract 1 (May 2011)
a. Need to show all right of ways as "previously dedicated ". (Planning)
b. Additional easements are required prior to final plat approval. (Oncor)
c. All access to state highways (Central Freeway) shall be approved by TxDOT.
(TxDOT)
d. The parcel is currently served by water and sewer. (Engineering)
e. Compliance with all stormwater detention requirements, in accordance with all City
Ordinance and criteria, must be met. (Engineering)
CARPORTS:
Case C 11 -10
Carport in the front setback
2511 Carrigan
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 3 MAY 11, 2011
Mr. Alvaro Luna requested conditional use approval to construct a carport in the front setback
at his Carrigan Street residence. There are four (4) properties within 200 feet of the perimeter
of this property with carports in the front back.
Thirty-one (31) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Five (5) or 16.13%
replied in favor and none (0) were opposed.
Mr. Kidwell made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda; Mr. Stephenson seconded. The
motion carried.
V. REGULAR AGENDA
Conditional Approval of Two Conflicting Plats
Highland Addition, Block 1, Lot 2 -C and Lot 7 -A [replat] (May 2011)
Highland Addition, Block 1, Lot 2 -C, Lot 5 -A, and Lot 7 -A [replat] (May 2011)
The applicant submitted two possible scenarios for the replatting of Parker Square Plaza and
some of the surrounding properties. Depending on the outcome of their negotiations, only one
of the two plats will be filed with the County. Approval of these plats was contingent upon only
one plat being filed.
Mr. Odom stated this item would have normally been placed on the Consent Agenda; however,
since there were two plats, staff felt it would be a better option on the Regular Agenda.
Mr. Odom explained there were two conditions to be changed; both conditions apply to both
plats. The changes were:
b. Provide a 10' right -of -way along Kemp Blvd. for future road widening, or obtain a
waiver of the requirement from City Council, or obtain a determination from the
City Engineer that the easement or additional right -of -way is not roughly
proportional to the proposed development.
g. Provide a blanket easement as approved by the City, or locate all existing lines
and provide defined easements as required by the City.
Mr. Stephenson asked if the decision to be made by this Commission would be on one plat or
both plats. Mr. Odom explained both plats would require approval; only one plat will be filed
with the County. Mr. Stephenson then asked, if the plat with Lot 5 -A and Lot 7 -A were
approved, would it include all the conditions. Mr. Odom stated each plat has different
arrangements of lot lines; after the plat is filed with the County, those property lines will become
official. One of the plats will be filed with the County after the applicant's negotiations and the
other plat will become void.
Ms. Payne asked if parking would be taken away from Applebee's or the bank.
Mr. Richard Boyd, Corlett, Probst, and Boyd representing the owner of Parker Square, stated
the easement for additional right -of -way on Kemp would remove 15 parking places from
Applebee's. Ms. Payne asked if parking would be removed from both or one business and how
will these changes affect both businesses. Mr. Boyd stated Applebee's owns the property
where their restaurant is located. Union Square also owns their property. Mr. Boyd explained
Applebee's would like additional parking and is purchasing property from Parker Square to
achieve that purpose. Union Square is in negotiations with the owner of Parker Square but he
was unaware of those details.
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 4 MAY 11, 2011
Mr. Stephenson asked if the additional parking would be behind Applebee's. Mr. Boyd stated
parking is one of the issues being discussed in the negotiations.
Mr. Standerfer stated, if the incompatibility of the lot lines was resolved between the two plats,
one plat would have Applebee's property expanded to the rear and to the Union Square bank
side which will give them 40+ parking spaces. Mr. Stephenson asked if the Bank's drive thru
would be operational after the changes; Mr. Standerfer replied affirmatively. Mr. Standerfer
continued by stating there is a narrow strip of property approximately 80 feet wide separating
Applebee's from the Bank which Applebee's intends to purchase and will give the Bank drive
thru access.
Mr. Taylor asked if the objective was to establish the boundaries for parking lot enlargement.
Ms. Payne asked if the City had a recommendation; Mr. Odom replied both plats have the same
conditions to be met prior to filing [with the County].
Ms. Payne asked which plat would cause Applebee's to lose 15 parking spaces. Mr. Boyd
replied if the easement for the widening of Kemp is exercised then Applebee's would likely lose
those spaces. Union Square would lose some property if Kemp were widened but it would not
affect them. Mr. Odom stated the City Engineer would do a study on the Kemp widening to
determine if more right -of -way would be necessary.
Mr. Tate made a motion to approve both plats; Mr. Taylor seconded. The motion carried.
2. Case C 11 -09
Carport in the front setback
1519 Southwinds Drive
Mr. Hansel Byers requested conditional use approval for a carport in the front setback of his
residence on Southwinds Drive. There are no (0) properties within 200 feet of the perimeter of
the property with carports in the front back.
Twenty -four (24) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One (1) or 4.17%
responded in favor; three (3) or 12.50% responded as opposed; and, one (1) or 4.17%
responded as undecided /no opinion.
Mr. Odom stated there was no picture of a similar carport because the applicant plans to have a
carport compatible with his residence.
Chairman Nelson stated one of the opposing neighborhood responses commented on visibility.
He stated when he drove by the location he did not envision the carport becoming problem. Mr.
Taylor stated he agreed with Chairman Nelson regarding the visibility. He asked about the
location of the brick columns.
Chairman Nelson asked if the applicant was present to answer some of these concerns. The
applicant did not attend the meeting. Mr. Stephenson stated the applicant's absence would
make a [negative] difference in his vote. He also noted this would be the only carport in the
neighborhood and there were several opposed.
Chairman Nelson read another response which stated "carports generally collect 'items "'. Two
more were opposed with no comments. He agreed with Mr. Stephenson the opposing
neighbors were in direct proximity to the applicant's property. Chairman Nelson noted the
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 5 MAY 11, 2011
carport was going to be compatible with the house brick and assumed the roofing material
would also match. Mr. Taylor asked if the roof [of the carport] would be tied into the house.
Mr. Odom stated he did not have the information being requested and recommended tabling
this request in order for the applicant to be present.
Mr. Taylor made a motion [the original motion] to approve this carport; Ms. Morrow seconded.
Mr. Stephenson made a motion to table this carport request; Ms. Payne seconded. The motion
carried.
3. Case R 11 -02
Proposed rezoning of approximately 4.78 acres south of Parkstone Senior Village
Apartments from Single Family -1 (SF -1) to Multifamily Residential (MFR) and amend the
Land Use Plan to show the area as high density residential
1727 West Rathgeber Road Rear
The owner of Parkstone Senior Village Apartments proposed to expand their facility to the south
and east of the present location. The land to the south is outside the city limits which the owner
has requested to annex. The annexation ordinance will be presented to City Council on June
7th.
All properties annexed into the city receive an automatic SF -1 zoning. This rezoning request is
contingent upon City Council's approval of the annexation.
Three (3) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. No (0) responses were
received. It was noted two of the three parcels were owned by the applicant.
The applicant's representative was in the audience and available for questioning.
Mr. Taylor asked if there were any houses around this project; the reply was no. He inquired
about the number of apartments being added to the complex. Ms. Pamela Vest, manager of
Parkstone, responded 64 units would be added.
Mr. Odom explained the proposed annexed property is currently owned by Mr. Jerry Vieth. The
sale to Parkstone's owner is contingent on the approval of the annexation and rezoning.
Mr. Taylor made a motion to recommend to City Council the approval of this rezoning request;
Ms. Morrow seconded. The motion carried.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
City Council Update
Mr. Odom stated the first of two public hearings for the annexation for 1727 West Rathgeber
Road Rear ( Parkstone Apts.) was heard by City Council; the second public hearing will be on
May 17th.
Mr. Odom explained the rezoning for Highland West Side Subdivision from SF -2 to LC was
approved.
Mr. Odom commented the Sign Ordinance amendment was tabled because of questioning
regarding the fee. He felt another proposal would be presented to City Council at the next
, . . .
P & Z COMMISSION
PAGE 6
MAY 11, 2011
meeting. Ms. Payne stated a penalty was not discussed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Mr. Risley explained the penalty amount is standard and for any violation of the
Zoning Ordinance.
VII. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:34 p.m.
6(0-600-11
L. O. Nelson, Chairman Date
F
-to it