The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 11/11/2015P&Z Commission Page 1 of 19 November 11, 2015 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 4-t�14IL" James Win go Chairman Karla Metty is Graham Rodney Martin Bobby Teague, Assistant Director of Community Development/Building Official Jeff Browning Anthony Inman * Planning Barney Brock Loren Shapiro, Planner III Daniel Leslie Alternate #2 Stephen Santellana • Council Liaison Michael it * Council at-Large ABSENT- Justin Jones Alternate #1 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Wingo at 2:00 p.m. He then proceeded to make the following announcements: a. This meeting is being broadcast live on Channel 11. It will be replayed at 2:00 p.m. daij7A including Saturday and Sunday until the next live meeting is aired, which will be the seco Wednesday of next month at 2:00 p.m. r• 111101111111 1 11 � 111 1� 111 ci� I I W$T[ FO-UR—dYTO IjUre I -*1TWVaW%—, by-case basis and voted on accordingly. Kinley Hegglund, City Attorney City Staff Jim Dockery, Deputy City Manager Bobby Teague, Assistant Director of Community Development/Building Official * Karen Gagn6, Planning Administrator * Planning Loren Shapiro, Planner III Christopher Guess, Planner 11 Matthew Prouty, Planner 11 Carolyn Edwards, Senior Administrative Clerk Ale rrego, Code Enforcement Officer 11 Code Enforcement Ryan Chavis Code Enforcement Officer Mike Moreno Code Enforcement Officer Stephen Santellana • Council Liaison Michael it * Council at-Large ABSENT- Justin Jones Alternate #1 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Wingo at 2:00 p.m. He then proceeded to make the following announcements: a. This meeting is being broadcast live on Channel 11. It will be replayed at 2:00 p.m. daij7A including Saturday and Sunday until the next live meeting is aired, which will be the seco Wednesday of next month at 2:00 p.m. r• 111101111111 1 11 � 111 1� 111 ci� I I W$T[ FO-UR—dYTO IjUre I -*1TWVaW%—, by-case basis and voted on accordingly. P&Z Commission Page 2 of 19 November 1® 2015 c. Applicants and citizens who wish to address the Commission or answer questions from the AIR 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. Mr. Wingo made note that November 11 th was Veterans Day and took a moment to thank all of the armed forces members, past and present, whose service and sacrifice means so much to guarantee our freedom. Mr. Wingo further thanked everyone for attending the meeting on Veterans Day. III :I I I :14 [9][0101THIZI A IIJJIIlI!!IJ ili!! is l, Mr. Martin made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 14, 2015 meeting. Metty seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote. (7-0) Ri ME M IF T# UFFIMUSU 110HU41IRMIRMIG 5. Final plat — Westmoreland Park & Adjacent Properties Lot 8-A, Block 123 Lot 2-A, Block 124 0 The property is served by public sewer and Water. (Public Works) i=* OR- f t7l in order to ensure conditions • construction (1 hr fire rated assembly) are in ompliance International Residential Code. would be 80ft and will be located in the backyard not directly visible from the righf of'way and behind the porte-cochere. The height of the carport is 7 ft. 1 in and the existing fence adjacent to it is 6 ft. tall. The request for the conditional use was so the carport could be built on the interior side property line. There were 2 properties within 200 ft. with carports within the interior side setback. 9M P&Z Commission Page 4 of 19 November 11, 2015 Staff sent 23 notification letters to surrounding property owners and received 7 responses in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 with no opinion. 4W Mr. Wingo asked if the applicant was in attendance and Mr. Sam Kouri responded that he woull answer any questions from the commission; there were no questions. Mr. Martin made a motion to approve case C 15-32. Mr. Inman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). HOF Ms. Metty made a motion to approve Case C 15-33. Mr. Graham seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). Case C 15-34 Request for a conditional use to allow a manufactured home in the Single- Family Residential (SF-1) zoning district. 515 Cartwright Road Staff recommended approval of the manufactured home under the following conditions: • The manufactured home meets the requirements of Section 5600 of the zoning ordinance for manufactured housing. • The manufactured home be placed on the property meeting minimum setbacks. Via, s V�1- .*&Z Commission Page 5 • 19 November 11, 201�i "r, , KIM Mr. Wingo asked if the applicant was in attendance and Mr. Kruithof was and agreed to the conditions. Mr. Martin made a motion to approve case C 15-34. Mr. Leslie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). 4. Case C 15-35 Request for a conditional use to allow services (print shop for Victory Baptist Church) in a Residential Mixed Use (RMU) zoning district. 1400 & 1404 36 th Street 5- replied no. Mr. Wingo asked if the fence was currently being constructed and Mr. Mutts stat P&Z Commission Page 6 of 19 November 11, 2015 the required fence had not been constructed yet but there was an existing partial fence there currently. Mr. Wingo also inquired if this shop was strictly for Victory Baptist Church and Mr. Mutts replied that it was just for the church's ministry. Mr. Martin made a motion to approve case C 15-34. Ms. Metty seconded the motion. The casti Aassed unanimously. (7-0) Case C 15-36 Request for a conditional use to allow a carport in the required front setback in the Single-Family Residential (SF-2) zoning district. 2705 Colquit Road In September 2015, Code Enforcement confirmed a carport was constructed in the front and interior side setback on the subject property without an approved conditional use or building permit. In response, planning staff met with Otilia Perez and her son Jose on October 6 to discuss the code violations and options to remedy. Since Ms. Perez wanted to have a carport, staff directed the applicant to apply for a conditional use, meeting requirements. On October 9, planning staff visited the property and measured the existing carport and setbacks. It was determined that the existing carport was on both the front and interior side property lines. Additionally, the carport posts were 10 feet high, exceeding the maximum height by 2 feet. The applicant agreed to submit a conditional use application and make necessary changes to N meet section 4220(l), minimum requirements for carports. The changes included decreasing the size of the carport to 18 feet deep, from the house, and extending down the driveway. This would provide a minimum 2 feet of clearance between the front property line and carport. Second, the carport would be moved 3 feet southward to allow for a minimum 3 feet clearance from the interior side property line, with an allowance of a 1 foot overhang. Finally, the applicant agreed to lower the post height from 10 feet to not more than 8 feet. These adjustments and changes to the existing carport would meet zoning requirements for carports. Mr. Shapiro further stated the carport was illegally placed on the property without an approved conditional use or building permit; and did not meet carport requirements in the zoning ordinance. However, the applicant has met with staff and agreed to remedy these issues through the conditional use process and adjusting the carport onsite. Mr. Shapiro recommended approval of the carport with the following conditions: • The carport shall have dimensions of not more than 18 feet deep by 23 feet wide; • The carport shall be no less than 3 feet from the interior side property line with an allowance of a 1 foot overhang (minimum 2 feet from the interior side property line); • The carport shall be not less than 2 feet from the front property line; and • The posts for the carport shall be no more than 8 feet in height. Mr. Wingo asked if the applicant was in attendance and Mr. Jose Rodriguez approached the commission. Mr. Wingo confirmed with Mr. Rodriguez that he built an illegal carport and asked if he was agreeable to the terms and recommendations from the planning staff, in which he was. r lo no u ez Ej��Vse ex 3: ti! i � I -n—AbEftT WK-MEW i =. P&Z Commission Page 7 • 19 November 11, 2015 7�,&Z Commission Page 8 of 19 November 11, 2015 commission with several responses received after the deadline which were not included in the tally. Staff received an application amending the Canyon Trails PUD (Ordinance #24-92) in September 2015. The request included the addition of residential zero-lot line tracts and self-storage/mini warehouse facilities on the two properties fronting Seymour Highway (4200 & 4201 Canyon Trails). Staff had concerns with the proposed amendments which included changing the sign regulations. Additionally, planning remained concerned about the compatibility of the self-storage mini warehouse use with the surrounding residential single family detached. Staff requested the sign regulations remain as they were in the original ordinance. Moreover, design standards were requested for the self-storage facility so that it would maintain the character of the existing residential dwellings. The applicant was agreeable to allowing the sign standards to remain unchanged. However, staff did not receive any design standards for the self-storage facility as requested. Planning proceeded with the request to amend the Canyon Trails PUD, and sent notifications to property owners, and advertised the notice in the newspaper for the October 14, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. Staff began receiving inquiries from property owners who did not understand the proposed zoning change and amendments to the Canyon Trails PUD. Mr. Guess stated staff observed a reasonably high amount of misinformation, misunderstanding, and apprehension from property owners of the Canyon Trails community, and proposed the applicant withdraw his application so that additional information could be distributed. P&Z Commission Page 9 of 19 November 11, 2015 (1170 M importance of having the community meeting. The applicant proceeded to have the communill meeting October 31, and staff was in attendance. MEEM<« » »« «_«> � P&Z Commission Page 10 of 19 November 11, 2016 61M I a Vikol I I I I I LQ 110 LZIO Ito 1:4 #1 t; I ffir. Browning asked Mr. Mehan about lot sizes. Mr. Mehan stated most of the lot sizes would be 50 x 150ft. which would make them 7,500 sq. ft. The only lots that would not be 7,500 square feet are the corner lots. W 41 W-W9 1-9- W, -If- A A-94-49-A, 124 4 W9 W11 ;ill I P1001109r-1 I W I a I A I Rs Lei WIMM I'm I I rt I a S127-US] I I FILTIV-2 I I I I WHOIrt I ILI W-Irt I V4*04#00 I RJ If - 0 1 1' M P&Z Commission Page 11 of 19 November 11, 2015 Le yj I Et-lut I I gr-� I ILW M ri� P&Z Commission Page 12 of 19 November 11, 2015 stucco walls, and a capal top. It would be attractive but with the fence and the topography, 90 AS percent • the right hand (east) side would • hidden. Mr. Browning commented he does not believe the storage units were the problem. Mr. Wingo asked the public due to the overwhelming quantity of people wishing to speak, if there was anyone in favor of the application and if so they may speak first. Teresa Rose, 2110 Canyon Ridge Drive, stated in the master plan with the development, the "Congregate Living Center" was supposed to be developed on the other side of Canyon Trails, I Sri` 11 Mr. Rhone approached the podium and clarified, the land at the entrance of Canyon Trails was never dedicated as a wildlife refuge, but rather a "wildscape" and was the second designated wildscape in the state by Texas Parks and Wildlife. Wildscape meaning, they would be leaving '2 third of the land undeveloped to keep the area as native as possible for the wildlife that was already there. Mr. Rhone noted the land at the entrance was never any different than thQ developable lots in the development. 9 W a w Mr. Rhone approached the podium and clarified, the land at the entrance of Canyon Trails was never dedicated as a wildlife refuge, but rather a "wildscape" and was the second designated wildscape in the state by Texas Parks and Wildlife. Wildscape meaning, they would be leaving '2 third of the land undeveloped to keep the area as native as possible for the wildlife that was already there. Mr. Rhone noted the land at the entrance was never any different than thQ developable lots in the development. F a M s e l l II= ZIMM-17, ST-MEWTIM [1111 tell IN I# at ILAW IVA I I &-I 1;ngs I a, et- im 114% Mr. Leslie noted that the marketing campaign which one of the residents presented could hav�--- iiit,een misleading. Ms. Metty believed the marketing campaign weather misleading or not was a civil matter an to weather a "happy resolution" was achievable, # Ar4yr-INI all G-1I114Vt9IIr-XQ IIWII Mr. Guess stated that single family detached residential is an allowed use within the existing *rdinance and could be developed with minor municipal involvement. Mr. Martin inciuired to the minimum lot size on the single family detached residential containeit' R, H #T#T I Tgwrn F, =.- - = Mr. Guess resgonded that tl dinance rec!uires 8 500 s uare feet as the minimum lot size permitted within the existing ordinance. VIr. Bro%I 11"IIIII]IN I Z I - All w�-lifiefir�l#&IillolTlkyimtol&lgolWl#loltt)141 rIVAUM MENEM MIJ Commission eta- 19 of r- i There was no other business. V1. ADJOURN �� r Ell � .� �