Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 07/10/2024 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 10, 2024 PRESENT: David Cook •Chairman Michael Grassi •Member Mark McBurnett •SAFB Liaison Douglas McCulloch •Member Noros Martin •Member Wayne Pharries •Member Blake Haney •Member Steve Wood •Member Jeremy Woodward •Member Brady Enlow •Alternate No.1 Alan Sizemore •Alternate No.2 James McKechnie, Legal Department •City Staff Russell Schreiber, Director of Public Works •City Staff Terry Floyd, Director of Development Services •City Staff Fabian Medellin, Planning Manager •City Staff Christal Cates, Planner II •City Staff Cedric Hu, Planning Technician •City Staff Robin Marshall, Admin Assistant •City Staff ABSENT: Matt Mars ♦Member I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mr. David Cook, at 2:00 p.m. Chairman Cook proceeded to make the following comments: II. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Cook asked if there were any comments from the public. With no response, Chairman Cook closed public comments. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Noros Martin, made a motion to adopt the amended, June 12, 2024, minutes. Commissioner Jeremy Woodward seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously, 8-0. IV. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Case C 24-18— 3200 Kenesaw Avenue & 3205 Kessler Boulevard Consider taking action on a conditional use at 3200 Kenesaw Avenue & 3205 Kessler to allow for expansion of a non-conforming cemetery in a Single Family2 zoning district. Applicant: Dcn. David Bindel Commissioner Steve Wood made a motion to approve the case. Commissioner Doug McCulloch seconded the motion. Mr. Fabian Medellin presented the case to council and stated that Dcn. Bindel had met with staff regarding the lot, that the church has owned for a number of years, and they have been unable to expand or make this petition due to a deed restriction. That deed restriction expired two months ago, so the church is wanting an expansion of the use of the cemetery. The major thoroughfares near this property are Wenonah Blvd, Kessler Blvd., Seymour Road as well as Santa Fe. Mr. Meddelin showed aerial views of the property showing that the lot has an existing cemetery on the southern (Kenesaw) end of the property, with the vacant proposed site being located on the northern (Kessler) end of the property. The Site is within a Single Family 2 zoning district which does not allow a cemetery, but under Section 6100, if the property is located on the same lot, a petition can be made before the Commission to allow for that expansion. He stated, as a part of our process, we have notified all property owners within 200 feet, but we did not receive any responses back from. When we look at the staffs recommendation,we look at the impacts the cemetery would create if expanded. It would have services and visitors, but this would be conducted during daytime business hours. When looking at the proposed use and expansion, and looking at the layout, the 3205 Kessler touches the neighboring property (3209) but is very minimal. The majority of the expansion will be abutting the residential uses by right of way through Kessler and Santa Fe. Coupling that with the low use of visitation, staff does make the recommendation to approve the conditional use for the expansion for the non-conforming cemetery in the Single Family 2 zoning district with the two following conditions: 1) The lots, 3200 Kenesaw Avenue and 3205 Kessler Boulevard, be combined through the platting process. and 2) That any development shall comply with any applicable building codes. Chairman Cook asks if the applicant is in the audience, and would like to speak. Dcn Bindel stepped forward to address the Commissioners. He thanked the Commissioners for their consideration of this motion, and Mr. Medellin for the work he has done for Sacred Heart and the cemetery, and would appreciate the Commission's approval. Chairman Cook asks if there is anyone else that would like to speak. No one steps forward. Chairman Cook then asks if there is any discussion about the motion. Commissioner Norris Martin asks why they are voting to approve something that already is being used for a cemetery, because even though the 3205 Kessler section does not have any tombstones or markers, the 3200 Kenesaw section does. Mr. Medellin explains that the ordinance for that zoning district does not allow use for a cemetery, but the existing one is there so we continue to let it exist, perpetuity, until something changes on that land. The ordinance doesn't allow for expansions, except through this process, through the conditioning experiment process. So, prior to them expanding on that, the secondary lot, the ordinance required that it only be expanded on the same existing property. So, a combining of the laws would be required, and then your approval also to be required, before they can expand on that piece of land. Chairman Cook took the motion to a vote, and the motion passed 8-0 in favor. 2. Case R 24-03—4307, 4309 &4311 Canyon Trails Drive Public hearing to consider taking action on a proposed amendment, Canyon Trails Planned Unit Development(Ord. 07-2016), to allow for the conversion of 4307, 4309 &4311 Canyon Trails Drive(Lots 120-122, Canyon Trails, Section 5)from dedicated open space to single family lots permitted on the Master Plan by the proposed three lots. Applicant: Esther Muratha Chairman Cook notes that this is a public hearing, and opened it at 2:08pm. Mr. Medellin presented the case and stated that the three parcels, 4307, 4309 and 4311, are part of a master planned unit development that was established in 1992. Since then, there have been a couple revisions to that, one in 2004 and one in 2016. The applicant, Esther, purchased the three properties from a third-party vendor on behalf of a consortium of trustees in the City being one of them, the school district and the county. These properties were struck off, meaning the original developer and owner, Mr. Rhone, was unable to make payment of his property taxes, and because of such, the properties were seized. They weren't acquired by anyone, so they were struck off and became ownership under the trustee group. Ms. Muratha met with staff after she acquired the properties to begin discussions on what can be developed, and it was at that time she was informed of the PUD and the very unique development of that neighborhood. The three properties that Ms. Muratha purchased (pictures of the three properties are displayed for the Commissioners to see)were all designated as open space. As pointed out in the pictures in an overhead view of the entire early subdivision, and looking at the layout and the adjacent uses, for the most part it is all residential other than the open space directly to the southeast, northwest and the southwest as well. This planned unit development is incomplete. It hasn't been finished out. There are a couple other portions still left remaining to be developed. Canyon Trails, as part of the last layout, is proposed to extend and connect to Turtle Creek and then just north of that are two additional cul-de-sacs proposed that were approved as part of the 2004 amendment to the PUD. Mr. Medellin shows a more precise look at the zoning district and the adjacent uses and states that it is all single family and open space. Just outside of the PUD, portions of Tanglewood are Single Family 1 zoning district. Showing a view of the subject site, Mr. Medellin shows that a gazebo was built and installed by the original owner/developer early in the 2000's with a dedication ceremony, basically an unveiling of the gazebo for the neighborhood. That has remained there since. Showing other views of the properties and the surrounding uses, Mr. Medellin states they are primarily residential or open space and points out that those are east and west views along Canyon Trails Drive. When the owner met with the Planning and Development department, and learned of the PUD and the limitations of its uses, we suggested before moving forward that she should reach out to the neighborhood and do a door-to-door survey to really get some insight and opinions from the neighborhood. When she returned, she stated that she received mixed reviews, some in favor, some opposed, but no real clear line on if the neighborhood would support her efforts. We suggested she do a second survey, and we offered to host it or even participate in it. We couldn't mediate, but we could observe and take notes of the interactions. Then after some time, due to personal reasons (Ms. Muratha had a baby) and after two years the applicant came back and wanted to move forward with the petition. She informed us that nothing had changed in regards to the surveying of the neighbors, and that it was still mixed reviews. The staff began to weigh what was going to be our recommendation, and this was not an easy decision. What we use are some of our previously guiding principles, we try to use equity and fairness as best as we can in the application of all of our laws, and that's the way they are written. And then the way we try to make recommendations, whether it be a duplex or a manufactured home, but we want to give housing options. And that is one reason we gave this recommendation. The properties are platted right now, This is a unique set of circumstances for these properties. The layout changed in 2004, however, these properties were platted in 1997 in contradiction to that layout. In contradiction to the Master Plan Layout, and those were done by the original developer in 1997, so that lends staff to believe that would have been the developers path moving forward and his intention to build on those parcels. Why else plat them? This was another thing the staff considered. The second thing is, as a part of the development, the developer placed deed restrictions on the property. Really, that is a civil matter unrelated to land use regulations. However, in addition to those deed restrictions, we do have a very hefty developmental regulations, as you can see in the current adopted PUD plans for any new single-family home that do include things like square footage requirements, height requirements and so forth. Leading to a standard of a product that would be built. So, there are protections for products that would be built. In our estimation, it would be at least a $400,000 home that would be built. Now, that is just our opinion, and we are not in the building business, but there are protections today that will set those requirements of what can be built, and we are not asking to change those. All we are asking is to allow for those three lots to be changed from open space to new residential homes. As part of the requirement, we do send out notices. This is a little different from your typical conditional use permit, because we are changing the whole district. It's not just a lot or two lots, it's the whole planned unit development that we are changing. So, we had to notify everyone within the planned unit development, and 200 feet around that. So, 188 notices were sent out, and of that we received, actually received one just now just before the presentation. So as of now, we have 26 opposed, six in favor and four undecided responses. State law requires that once we hit a threshold of 20% or either lots, or land within the area being changed, or within the area of +200 feet, that a supermajority approval by the governing bodies is required. Now, that would be City Council and we are making the recommendation today that it go to City Council. Looking at some of those considerations, some of the history of the PUD, and some of our planning philosophies, and the one that weighs on me most is the housing density burdens. Every month we approve duplexes in Single Family 2 zoning districts in the most dense neighborhoods. So, Mr. Medellin states he feels it is not the responsibility of those, the typically disadvantaged communities, to bear the burden of housing densities. He believes there is an opportunity here to create more housing options now, whether if you want to live in a duplex apartment or a $400,000 home, that their property owner's prerogative. Right?You choose where you live. The staff recommend that we make those changes to the planned unit development, to change those three properties, 4307,4309, and 4311 Canyon Trails, from open space to a Single-Family dwelling unit lot. And to increase the number of lots allowed within that planning and development by those three. Chairman Cook asks if anyone would like to come up to the podium and speak, and informs all that there will be a three-minute time limit to present one's case. Frank Jarrett comes to the podium, and states that his house is right across the street. He states that he did not respond to the notification letter, but says this is a bad development. He notes that there is a steep hill on a very sharp shallow lot, with narrow building boundaries. He objects to the proposed changes and says there are better places to build. He feels that whoever buys those lots to build will have a difficult time maintaining the hill due to land sliding. He says it has nothing to do with his sense of privacy or having people in the neighborhood. Commissioner Doug McCulloch asks, if the hill wasn't there would you still object? Mr. Jarrett says that conceptually, in terms for housing, he has no problem. But the problem is those plat lines do not do justice to the terrain. That is an old gully. I think the hill is a bad place to build, basically. Dan Gagne steps up to the podium to speak. He states that he lives down the street and across the road from the property. He is also adjacent to a major drainage easement there. He is opposed to changing the designation of the open area/park to residential. Adding these residential properties in Canyon Trails, as Fabian said, they will be$400,000 homes. It does not add to affordable housing in Wichita Falls. That's not what we are looking for. The Canyon Trails PUD is unique in that it combines urban living with wild scape. It's the only place like that in all of Wichita Falls. All the homeowners in the development, whether they know it or not, have paid some premium to have a hundred and some acres developed out of a 300-acre development. Leaving all that, Rhone Construction left a lot on the table. He could have popped homes in on top of each other and made a whole lot more money. Over the years there's been a lot of changes, as they mentioned, and you have talked about it already. But one thing remained consistent, that we preserve open space or wild scape. That's important. Dave Rhone built the gazebo in around 2002. Mr. Gagne stated he doesn't have notes on it or pictures, but he was at the picnic that he threw, the BBQ that dedicated that area to the homeowners. Why did he do that? Because, as Frank mentioned, the lots are unbuildable. He platted them out, or his architect platted them out, and then they found out that building there was not going to be a good idea. So, unfortunately Rhone Construction declared bankruptcy after Dave Rhone passed away, and the lots were seized by the city. They were sold through public auction and people bought them. Mr. Gagne looked at them, and thought of buying some, but didn't because it didn't make logical sense to him for his finances and for location. But other investors bought them, seeing the same thing he did, that these were nonresidential. They were to be kept open space. The designations were there and they were in the descriptions. One thing he didn't realize was when Mr. Gagne moved in, was how poor the drainage is in Canyon Trails. They built the drainage for the one hundred and some houses that were planned there. Just barely, that area drains by a 48-inch culvert. Beside my house is a four foot by five-foot square culvert that passes under Canyon Trails Road, that thing fills to the brim. (Alarm sounds that his time is up) Chairman Cook says that Mr. Gagne can give a closing statement. Mr. Gagne continues that the 20-foot square cross section is full. It gets down to the four-foot diameter, 12 '/ half square foot cross section, and it backs up all the way into our yard and our neighbor's yard. That's how much water is coming through this development. He feels that approving this amendment makes it a dangerous precedent, and say there are other people that bought some of those lots that want to develop as well. So. how do you tell this developer, yes, and the next person that comes down the road, no? How do you tell classic builders that purchased the leftover of the development from Dave Rhone Construction that you had room for 117 houses in here, but we just gave three of them away to this guy, and we gave one to that guy...and we, you know, that sort of stuff? So, if we are going to maintain the 117 homes in the planned urban development, we need to do that starting now. So, I'm asking you to please stick to the development, the master plan, with all its changes. Do not allow our open areas to be taken away, because once that open area, the parks, the wildlife is gone, it will never come back. Mr. Bob Hamblin approaches the podium to speak, and states that he lives directly across from the gazebo. Also, he lives next to a drainage ditch, that is concrete and 48 inches long. It's a good ditch, although it is not big enough. He has lived there for 15 years, and the water that comes down is red, most of it comes from the bluff across the street behind those lots at the far end. You have the corner lots, the middle lot and the other lot, and most of the dirt comes off that lot right next to the third one. It's eroded quite a lot. There's a sidewalk that runs in front of that, four inches below the red dirt, that's how much dirt has come off of that thing over the years, and it's coming down through that culvert and stacks up as soon as it runs out of concrete at the property line, out into the flood lake and creates a dam. Mosquitos, in the 15 years he has lived there it was only cleaned out once about four years ago. Mr. Hamblin used to be a builder, and the plats in here, the previous builder built on the desirable lots. The three lots, he feels as a previous builder, that those lots are not desirable for putting up a spec house and looking for someone to build it. If he were building that on there, he would try to put the cheapest house he could on it. Even if you build a square house on there, you might have 18 feet in the back of the house before you are up against the bluff, for a backyard. If you build a rectangle house in there, you might get up to 24 feet for a backyard. He says, so you can see why it would be undesirable for most people with children or whatever. He is also concerned that they would not want to build a house that would be comparable in amenities because of the cost of building it. At the cost of $125 a square foot, which would be cheap in today's market, those houses would cost about $320,000 to build, and then you would have to make a profit on top of that. "My house across the street, I could probably sell that thing for maybe$350,000. But the insurance company that insures it insists they insured the full replacement value,which is$400,000. So, you can see my concern what they might have to build across the street from me. Thank you" Commissioner McCulloch asks Mr. Hamblin what size house does he own, and Mr. Hamblin states his house is 2170 square feet. Mrs. Judy Wade steps to the podium and says she lives in the house on the very corner at the juncture of Canyon Trails and the big hill for 14 years. She says she has watched cars speed down the hill, with that turn, and then speed down Canyon Trails. She stated there are children in the neighborhood, and it's a pretty safe neighborhood, but the traffic is unreliably fast at times. The kids need to be on their bikes, they need to be walking. She said they have adult runners, bikers using the aerobic opportunity of the hill. A neighbor or hers was rear ended as he pulled out of his driveway from someone coming down the hill too fast. She continued, if the gazebo is torn down and they put a large $400,000 brick and mortar home, that the view will then be almost totally obstructed of the traffic coming down the hill. She said the kids will no longer be safe. Pulling out of our driveways will not be safe, because the traffic coming down the hill won't see them, and vice versa. She continues, if you allow a home to be built on the corner, you have to assume they are going to want a privacy fence, up the hill so the traffic won't look into their backyards. That's going to obstruct the view even more, and maybe even cut off a little bit of the sound of the cars coming down, so walkers and bikers won't even know anyone is coming down. And, in the winter, it gets icy. Now, she says, if you build a home, you have to assume they will park their cars in front of their home, or their visitors will be there. Now, besides just the brick-and-mortar home obstructing the corner view, now you've got cars possibly on both sides. You add that to people racing down the hill, and that creates a very dangerous situation. She strongly opposes the approval of changing the lots to residential. She asks to please keep it for their wildlife. They do see deer and bobcats crossing that area in front of the gazebo and no one objects to that. Chairman Cook asks if anyone else would like to speak, and no one responds. Then he asks if the applicant, Esther Muratha, would like to make a presentation. Ms. Muratha and her husband step to the podium. She states that her husband and her are the owners of those three lots, and they bought them from the Texas Community Group and that they were not told that the land was open space. Since they purchased the lots, they have maintained the properties including taxes and mowing. She stated that she understands that the worry is based on the terrain of the land, and feels that an architect could help with the concern of the water coming up the hill. She also says they intend to build houses that will match the value of the neighborhood, trying to brin less affordable houses. And she understands that while a $500 home may not be affordable for someone else, it is affordable to some. She said, "so just because the value of a home is high that it doesn't add to any value. She says she would appreciate the vote of the commission." Her husband stated his appreciation as well. Commissioner Wood asked when they were looking at the lots, did they do any research to determine how large of a footprint that they could potentially put on each of the lots? And asked if they looked at what kind of retaining wall, or what kind of method they might use to try to expand that or increase the usable footage of each of the lots? Ms. Muratha says that the restrictions for the city is about 2000 square feet for a single family. And stated that during the initial meeting with the city it was acknowledged that there would be a little bit of a challenge with the drainage, but they said it was doable. Her husband added that it would be done with an architect's expertise and they will definitely heed their word and do what they say is best. Chairman Cook asked if there is any additional discussion from the audience, and there is none. Chairman Cook then closes the public hearing at 2:37pm. Chairman Cook asked if there is a motion to approve the case, stating that this is just approving the case for the discussion here. That they are not voting on the actual change yet. Commissioner Michael Grassi made the motion and Commissioner Wayne Pharries seconded the motion. Chairman Cook states that the case is now closed for public discussion and will now start discussions by the Commission. Mr. Wood asked Mr. Medellin to give more information about the plat from 1997, when Mr. Rhone had those lots platted, and wanted to know as they were researching if there was any discussion about those lots being set aside as open space? He asks, "was that changed?Was there any discussion there that, you know that planning process that would basically change the designation from open space to residential lots?"Mr. Medellin replies, "So, looking through our records,that's 25 plus years ago, not a whole lot of documentation from any kind of meetings that were held during this planning portion, because, as part of our PUD processes, the plan has kind of functioned more of the master plan. So now the plans were submitted, but particularly never proven and that meant, your infrastructure, your water, your roads or streets. But in those planning kind of discussions, when that plat came through with those new lot lines, we didn't have any kind of record of where they came from. It was turned in by a surveyor on behalf of the via developer." Mr. Grassi asks how long has it been declared open space, and Mr. Medellin said since 1992. Mr. McCulloch wants to clarify, that they were open space in 1992, then in 1997 the lots were given separate platting?Mr. Medellin stated they were given lot lines that divided the open space. Mr. McCulloch asks if there is any idea why someone would put separate lot lines in an open space? Mr. Medellin says, in his profession, if someone is adding lot lines they are looking to buy and build. Mr. Grassi asked, but they never changed the designation? Mr. Medellin said,"they never did." Mr. Pharries stated, looking at the pictures and the drawings of the development, it looks like the original stuff that was included with the packet, in the appendix, all show that it is lots and not open space. On pages 110, 111 and 108 they all show those as houses. He speaks about one of the prior residents that spoke about when the gazebo was dedicated. It was dedicated in 2002, and the lot lines were added in 1997. Mr. Medellin says that the other limitation of those open spaces is only to be used for passive recreation. So, trails, sidewalks and the gazebo. That's the only use in the open space. Mr. Pharries stated that Mr. Gannon made a comment that designating these three lots as buildable might have some effect on other developers who have property. Mr. Medellin says that is correct, and adds that between the changes in layout from 1992-2004, there was whole other cul- de-sac added, but the total number of homes allowed within that residential planning development was never increased by that number of homes by the cul-de-sac. So, they amended the layout and showed more homes than what the development regulations allow. He added, that there is going to be a day that the 110 limit is going to be reached and these other homes in this layout will be denied. Mr. Medellin stated he didn't include that, because he didn't want that to be seen as the applicant making that position. But Mr. Medellin says he is in favor of making that change so that the total number of homes shown in the last layout, in the 2016 layout, be amended to include that last cul-de-sac. Adding, that it is the prerogative of the Commission, but Mr. Medellin wants to try to keep her petition and prior developmental regulations separate. Mr. Pharries says he feels they are setting a precedent here, and that it makes sense in a lot of ways to allow this. But asked, "at the same time, is that going to cause us a problem when someone comes back and wants to take some of the other that has never been designated as lots, and turn that into lots?" Mr. Medellin said that problem exists today. Mr. Pharries said that he noticed in the request that is being made, is for the approval to change these from open space to residential lots, but it also says "and increase the maximum number of single family lots permitted in the master plan by a proposed three lots." He asks, "so that is part of what we would be presenting and recommending to Council, could be both, so in sense they'd still be in the same boat tomorrow... whenever... that they are today. So, I think here we have a chance to approve this and not affect future development, any more or less, than what's already in place, correct?" Commissioner McCulloch asks Mr. Medellin, "if we don't approve this, what happens?" Mr. Medellin states that the property owner gets to maintain an open space/property. Mr. McCulloch then states that the owner will get to maintain the open space until they stop maintaining the open space, and then they stop paying taxes, and it starts all over again. Mr. Medellin answered, yes. Mr. McCulloch then asked, there is no active homeowner association, is that correct? Mr. Medellin states that is correct. Mr. Norris asks on open property such as this, are there any property taxes assessed on these open, and who pays those? Mr. Medellin says that land has a value, and yes there are taxes, and states that the applicant is paying those taxes for that land and that gazebo. Mr. Norris says as he understands, Mr. Rhone owned these properties at one time, and he declared bankruptcy and did not pay the property tax. He asked, who pays the back taxes and interest? Mr. Medellin replies that the applicant paid them when she purchased the properties. Even though the public hearing part of this meeting has been closed, Mr. Hamblin would like to add something, and the Commission chooses to allow him to speak. He speaks about the stability of the hill, and that a contractor had come out and poured concrete down behind the house to keep it from falling down. That was about three to four years ago he states. Mr. Pharries asks Mr. Hamblin if at the time the lots were listed for sale, did the homeowners talk to each other about purchasing the properties so they could control it? Mr. Hamblin says no. Mr. Pharries suggested that they could do that now and it would make everyone happy, trying to come up with a solution that would be in everyone's favor, Mr. Hamblin responded that those are not desirable lots. Mr. Grassi asked City Attorney James McKechnie a question about the HOA that deed restrictions that are listed in the packet, and asks if the deed restrictions can be viable since the HOA was never set up? Atty. McKechnie stated deed restrictions in the master plan are a little bit different than the deed restrictions actually on file. They can be viable again, but that would have to be a private lawsuit against neighbor-to-neighbor type of thing. How that would play out would be difficult especially since there is not an HOA. Not saying the deed restrictions aren't enforceable, and that's why he thinks some of the deed restrictions are reflected in the PUD ordinance itself...minimum size, house size and different layout designs, because those are more enforceable than private on private deed restrictions. Mr. Grassi asks if what they are voting on today would put a restriction that would require a 2000 square foot living area home. Atty. McKechnie said that is correct. Chairman Cook clarified that what the Commission will be voting on is not should they build or should they not build. It's adopting the language presented by staff in order to meet city ordinances, planning and developing strategies and to allow this to potentially to go to City Council for final approval. The Commission's vote does not dictate yes or no, that's being built. It's just giving them the opportunity, if they so choose, to build based upon city ordinances dictating how a structure is supposed to be built on those lots. The Commission's responsibility is to interpret what city ordinances allow and doesn't allow. Mr. Grassi asks Mr. Medellin about traffic concerns that the residents brought up, and how does the potential connection of Canyon Trail to Turtle Creek for a thoroughfare plan, how does that all play into this? Mr. Medellin responds that it only adds connectivity. That adds another means for vehicles to leave Canyon Trails. As part of our subdivision regulations, it's a requirement, once you get 85 lots in the subdivision, you're required to have connections to major thoroughfares. So, that way emergency services, evacuations and just preparedness, will be able to get in and out of the neighborhood efficiently. By adding that in, it's only going to increase mobility. Mr. Grassi asks if it is the intent of staff to enforce connectivity? Mr. Medellin responds, that yes, whenever that portion is developed,that is a part of our thoroughfare plan,that is a requirement of that thoroughfare plan that that be included in that subdivision. Mr. Medellin also states there are three regulating authorities; one regulates subdivision, one regulates thoroughfare and one regulates land use, and they all work in conjunction together. As a part of the subdivision regs, laying out the lots, the subdivision dictated that it needs that second connection. As a part of our recommendation, when we said yes, we recommend this, we said it needs another connection. Mr. Grassi noted that if homes are built or added that it will take away from the 85-lot requirement and could potentially have a negative impact on a future development. Mr. Wood asked, so our recommendation is to convert this from open space to residential lots and to increase the maximum number of lots by three. That this is a recommendation from this Commission to Council, that all we are doing is a recommendation to Council? Mr. Medellin says that is correct. Mr. Pharries asked if there are any additional three lots available for purchase, that are not currently designated as open space? Mr. Medellin stated, to his knowledge that all available lots have been developed. They have been platted and are available to be developed. Any other lots would have to go through the platting process to develop. Tract B has 7 lots there available. Chairman Cook asks if there has been any discussion to form an HOA? Someone in the audience says it was once discussed but nothing done on it.And has not been brought up again since 1992. Mr. Norris Martin calls for a vote. Chairman Cook took the motion to vote. Votes to oppose: Chairman Cook Mr. Norris Martin Mr. Michael Grassi Mr. Blake Haney Votes for: Mr. Steve Wood Mr. Doug McCulloch Mr. Wayne Pharries Mr. Jeremy Wood Chairman Cook states: The case was not approved by Planning and Zoning. Mr. Medellin says this will be presented to City Council on Aug 20tn 3. Case TA 24-01 —Subdivision and Development Regulations Amendment Consider taking action regarding a recommendation to City Council for proposed amendments to Appendix A — Subdivision Ordinance; Stormwater Design Manual; Pavement Design Manual and additional text amendments Chairman Cook opens public hearing at 2:59pm. Mr. Russell Schreiber presented the case. He discussed revisions to the subdivision ordinances, from previous recommendations. There was a motion to amend Section 3.6C to include the same language as in Section 3.5C. Mr. McCulloch made the motion and Mr. Grassi seconded it. It passed unanimously 8-0. After Mr. Schreiber presented the case, he stated that staff recommends for the Commission to approve that these items be moved to the City Council for ultimate approval, so these changes can all be put into effect. Chairman Cook asked if anyone would like to speak. No one comes to the podium. Chairman Cook closes the public hearing at 3:17pm. Chairman Cook asked if there is a motion to approve the case. Commissioner Steve Wood makes the motion to approve the case, Commissioner Jeremy Woodward seconded the motion. Mr. McCulloch refers to Section 3.1 regarding parks, and that the city can identify, reserve and have an option to obtain future land for parks, and spoke about his concern of the 50% homes completed threshold, and thinks it is unacceptable. He suggested instead of the 50%threshold, that it be changed to 10%. If a developer gets 10% completed, the City will have to decide if they will buy it or not to put a park on the land. If a park isn't put on the land in three years, then the developer has the option to buy it back at the same price the City Paid for it. Atty. McKechnie explains that there is a state law protection that once a property is taken for a park it is essentially a park forever. Mr. McCulloch is frustrated that the City doesn't have more parks and more for the youths to do in our area that the City owns. Director Terry Floyd stated that the Ordinance for the Park passed in 2003, and stated that any amendments that the Commission would like to make today, we can make the recommendation, and carry this part of the recommendation to Council. Mr. Medellin suggested that since the master plan is being developed now, why not have the Planning and Zoning Commission Board partner with the Parks Board in the development of the Master Plan as well as the subdivision ordinance amendment. Chairman Cook recognized the motion on the floor from Mr. McCulloch and Mr. Grassi seconded it. The motion passed 8-0. The Commission begins discussion about the cement depth and rebar changes that were made in early 2024. Mr, Schreiber stated that the change of the concrete depth from 5in to 6 inches is to increase the longevity of our overall concrete pavement. He noted failures throughout the city, and noted that local engineers suggest that 6in streets should be the minimum. Concrete streets last based on the subgrade that is under them, the rebar that is placed in them (correctly placed as designed), and the thickness of the concrete in them. A six-inch street will last between 25-30 years. Different factors were discussed, including the PSI for the concrete, and it was stated that the concrete becomes more brittle and the engineers don't believe you gain much more longevity by increasing the cement content in the concrete. Mr. Grassi questioned if there isn't any benefit provided in increasing the PSI, then why did the city go from 3000 to 3600 PSI during the four-year time frame that was referenced. Mr. Grassi makes a motion to change the residential street level to five-inch thickness, and to allow for #4 bars on 24-inch centers, for #3 bars on 18-inch centers. Mr. Pharries seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-1 In favor votes: Doug McCulloch Blake Haney Wayne Pharries Norros Martin Jeremy Woodward Michael Grassi David Cook Opposed votes: Steven Wood Mr. Kerry Maroney, a local engineer and consultant spoke about the benefits to longevity with a 6 in depth of concrete for the construction of streets. He is opposed to non- professional engineers making decisions that should be left in the hands of the consultants and/or professional engineers. RJ Walksman states that he disagrees with Mr. Maroney, and cites areas that he had personally worked on. Devin Smith from CPB stated that he agrees with Mr. Maroney, stating with his experience he sees a benefit to the 6-inch depth of streets for longevity. Chairman Cook called for a motion. Mr. Steve Wood made the motion to have the Commission make a recommendation to, and approve to go before the City Council. Mr. Jeremy Woodward seconded the motion. Before the motion could be called for a vote further suggested amendments were discussed. Mr. Michael Grassi made a motion to approve the Appendix A— Subdivision Ordinance; Stormwater Design Manual; Pavement Design Manual with the following; 1) Amend Section 3.6C to reflect the same language in section 3.5C about sewer and water size; 2) Amend Section 3.15 Parks—To reduce it from a 50%threshold to a 10%threshold; and 3)Amend Section 3.16 The design on residential streets, down to 5 inches of concrete with #3 rebar on 18 in, or#4 on 24 inch. along with additional text amendments. Mr. Wayne Pharries seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous 8-0 in favor to recommend approval of the amended Subdivision Ordinance; Stormwater Design Manual; Pavement Design Manual. The motion was clarified by Atty. James McKechnie as: Part of those are three amendments: *µme. 1) 3.6C to reflect the same language in 3.5C about sewer and water size. 2) 3.15 Parks—To reduce it from a 50% threshold to a 10% threshold. 3) 3.16 The design on residential streets down to 5 inches of concrete with #3 rebar on 18 in, or#4 on 24 inch. Along with the final three documents as amended. V. ADJOURN Chairman Cook adjourned the meeting at 4:09pm. OAL 8/#l.0z4 David Cook, Chairman Date T o ry y d, Director of Date