Loading...
2013_08.15 PZ Minutesic. KENNEDALE Planning and Zoning Commission www.cityoff<ennedale.com KENNEDALE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES COMMISSIONERS - REGULAR MEETING August 15, 2013 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 405 MUNICIPAL DRIVE WORK SESSION - 6:00 PM REGULAR SESSION - 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Harvey called the work session to order at 6:06 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Ms. Roberts called roll. Members present: Ernest Harvey (chair), Tom Pirtle (vice- chair), Ray Cowan, Michael Herring, Martin Young (alternate). Members absent: Adrienne Kay (term expired; not renewing), Carolyn Williamson, Donald Rawe (alternate) A quorum was present. Mr. Young was asked to serve as a regular member for the work session and regular session. Staff present: Rachel Roberts (planner) Staff absent: James Cowey (development services director) III. WORK SESSION A. Discuss any item on the Regular Session agenda Ms. Roberts said there was a correction to make to the ordinance for PZ 13 -03. The ordinance said the Board of Adjustment was required to meet a minimum of 10 times each year, but it should say a minimum of 2 times per year. Mr. Harvey asked about the Whereas statements and said they really just mention membership, not activities of the board. He said he would like a better idea of what the modifications are when the Commission makes these kinds of changes; he added that they're advising the City Council on changes, but they don't really know what those changes are. Mr. Pirtle asked what was being considered under case PZ 13 -04 and about the possible motions they could make. Mr. Harvey had some questions about discrepancies in the staff report. The table in the ordinance shows that a maximum of 117 lots may be created, but all the lot types added together total more than 117. Ms. Roberts said it was just to provide flexibility in the number of each lot type, but that she could change it so that it adds up to a maximum of 117. Mr. Pirtle asked which lots shown on the site plan were which lot type. Ms. Roberts said they should have received a copy of the site plan with the lots labeled, and she would get copies for them. Ms. Roberts left the room briefly to get copies of the labeled site plan. Mr. Harvey said they didn't have dimensions for the elevations to tell whether elevations would meet the lot coverage. Ms. Roberts said the elevations were just sample elevations and staff would determine at the permitting stage whether the buildings met the lot coverage requirement. Mr. Harvey said the tree spacing was shown as 40 feet in one drawing and 50 feet in another and said the drawings should be consistent. He added that he liked the landscaping and the layout with the trees and meandering sidewalks. He asked if there were landscaping requirements in the ordinance, and Ms. Roberts said it would follow city code. Mr. Harvey asked about the location of the gas pipeline in the area, and Ms. Roberts said the city's engineers and the public works department didn't provide any comments on that. She said that if James Cowey (development director) is at the regular session, he might be able to answer questions about the pipeline. Mr. Harvey said that the language in the ordinance didn't make it clear that J -swing garages would be permitted. Ms. Roberts said she would change the language to make it clear. The Commission asked several questions about drainage and retention ponds and about parking. Mr. Harvey asked Ms. Roberts to amend the proposed ordinance so that the language specifies that pond areas are to be built as amenities. B. Discuss zoning on city -owned and EDC -owned property in Oak Crest The Commission did not have time to discuss this item. C. Discuss creation or modification of zoning districts to implement the comprehensive land use plan The Commission did not have time to discuss this item. D. Discuss use of form -based codes in implementing the comprehensive land use plan at the Bowman Springs /Dick Price & Kennedale Pkwy intersection The Commission did not have time to discuss this item. E. Discuss Old Town zoning district regulations The Commission did not have time to discuss this item. F. Discuss item(s) for future consideration 1. Zoning standards for the Oak Crest area The Commission did not have time to discuss this item. 2. Green / environmental regulations The Commission did not have time to discuss this item. Work session closed at 7:02 P.M. IV. REGULAR SESSION V. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Harvey called the regular session to order at 7:02. 2 VI. ROLL CALL Ms. Roberts called roll. Members present: Ernest Harvey (chair), Tom Pirtle (vice- chair), Ray Cowan, Michael Herring, Martin Young (alternate). Members absent: Adrienne Kay (term expired; not renewing), Carolyn Williamson, Donald Rawe (alternate) A quorum was present. Staff present: Rachel Roberts (planner); James Cowey (development services director) VII. MINUTES APPROVAL A. Consider approval of the minutes from the July 18, 2013 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Mr. Pirtle made a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Mr. Herring. The motion passed with all in favor except Mr. Harvey, who abstained. VIII. VISITOR/CITIZENS FORUM No one registered to speak. IX. REGULAR ITEMS A. Case PZ 13 -03 to receive comments and consider approval of an ordinance amending Chapter 17, Article VI, "Zoning ", of the code of ordinances of the City of Kennedale, Texas, as amended, by establishing new sections providing for creation and purpose, membership, organization, rules and requirements, and powers and duties of the board of adjustment. A. Staff Presentation Ms. Roberts gave the staff presentation and said the ordinance should be corrected to say the board is required to meet twice per year. B. Public Hearing No one registered to speak. C. Staff Response and Summary of the Case No response was needed. D. Action by the Commission Mr. Pirtle made a motion to recommend approval, seconded by Mr. Cowan. The motion passed with all in favor except Mr. Harvey, who abstained. B. Case PZ 13 -04 to receive comments and consider approval on a request by Alluvium Development, Inc. for a zoning change for an approximately 45.5 acre tract from "R -2" Single Family Residential District to "PD" Planned Development District for property located at 925 Mansfield Cardinal Rd, legal description of J M Lilly Survey A 980 Tract 2 & A 985 Tract 3, Tarrant County, Texas. A. Staff Presentation Ms. Roberts described the proposed concept plan and the regulations included in the adopting ordinance. 3 Mr. Young asked who will maintain the retention ponds, and Ms. Roberts said they would be maintained by a homeowners' association. The Commission pointed out that the ordinance doesn't mention that an HOA is required, and Ms. Roberts said she could add that to the ordinance. Mr. Pritle asked about the perimeter fence, and Ms. Roberts said the fence would follow the city's standard subdivision regulations, which is masonry along public streets on the exterior of the subdivision and privacy fences on the interior. Mr. Harvey asked about screening around the ponds, and Ms. Roberts said the ordinance didn't address fencing around the ponds. Mr. Pirtle and Mr. Harvey provided positive comments on the green areas included in the concept plan and how they help create community and connectivity. Mr. Cowan asked about safety to keep kids from drowning in the ponds, and Mr. Harvey said it depends on the specifications for how much water is retained in the pond. Mr. Pirtle stated that the entrance across from Sonoma Drive will change the intersection to a major intersection and asked how that should be addressed. Mr. Harvey said the city could ask for a traffic study and the appropriate controls based on that study. Ms. Roberts said the developer was willing to move the entrance on Mansfield Cardinal, as needed, for safety reasons. She said the Public Works staff had only said the intersection may need to be reworked for the line of site. Mr. Pirtle asked the Commission members for their opinion of the elevations and added that he thought they needed some work. Mr. Harvey said that from a code perspective, he didn't know how much detail the Commission could get into in about the product, as long as they thought it meets the intent. Mr. Pirtle asked about the masonry requirement, and Mr. Harvey said the ordinance says "masonry," but the Commission could go into more detail about what that means. B. Applicant Presentation Terry Jobe, 3526 Routh St, Dallas, Texas gave the applicant presentation. He said he didn't have much to add to Ms. Roberts' comments. He said he feels the plan is dynamic and fosters a sense of community. He was going for connectivity, green regions, and efficient use of infrastructure, while keeping a sense of community for people in different walks of life and ages. That's why he included different lot sizes and house sizes. Some of the plans don't look exciting, and that's based on value. The proposed development has a range of options. Mr. Jobe said the HOA will take care of the ponds and common areas, including the entry. He also planned to include in deed restrictions a requirement that homes backing up to ponds must have wrought iron fences, not privacy fences. In terms of the number of trees and caliper, he would put that requirement in the deed restrictions if it wasn't included in the ordinance. He said that he usually requires 2" hardwoods in his developments. The Commission asked questions about the landscaping, since it wasn't clear from the exhibit how much landscaping there would be and where it would be located. Mr. Harvey asked for clarification on the spacing, was it 40' spacing planned for trees, and Mr. Jobe said that was a good spacing. Mr. Harvey mentioned that the Commission had discussed drainage during the work session, and he wanted to bring that up so everything discussed in the work session would be covered in the regular session. He asked how Mr. Jobe planned to handle moving the low point to the same easement where there is a gas line easement. Mr. Jobe said he had discussed that with his engineer, and the preliminary drainage plans are just conceptual at this point. He said the flume perhaps shouldn't be that wide, and it can't be too deep because of the gas line, but they also don't want ditches in backyards. He said they may be able to put in a series of y inlets through the flume and take it between the houses so that it's not just channelizing. Dayton Macatee of Macatee Engineering, 3519 Miles St, Dallas, addressed the Commission next. He described the preliminary drainage plans and the lot conditions. He said the low point there is not a well - defined creek as it when it moves north, but it is a low point and that the grading will be done to shift the low point. They planned to take the runoff from the west side and some additional as well and intercept it, but the details will come out in final design. He said that by state law, they can't pond the water on other people. Mr. Harvey asked if the Commission would get to see the final designs and specifications during the platting stage, and Mr. Macatee said it would. 4 Mr. Macatee mentioned the previous study done by the city and said it was a concept, too, and the ideas in it set guidelines, showing a seven acre pond partially on this property and partially not. He said they'll be taking the western half of that and putting it into their pond. Everything to the east is undeveloped and will continue as it already does. Mr. Harvey asked if it was their intention to manage it at the flow rate the study said, and Mr. Macatee confirmed that they would adhere to that study. Mr. Cowan asked whether the HOA would control the mosquito population, since the ponds will have water all the time, and Mr. Macatee said the HOA will do what it needs to do, and the ponds will be aerated to help keep down the mosquito population. Mr. Harvey asked how they would combine drainage and the gas line. Mr. Macatee said they can't excavate over the pipeline so they'd have to ask for approval to cross the gas line perpendicularly, which they've been able to do in a development in Mansfield. Concerning the entrance on Mansfield Cardinal, Mr. Macatee said that to meet the sight triangle requirements, the easiest solution is move the entrance to the west a bit, but they'd have to meet with the city's traffic engineers to work that out. Mr. Harvey summarized the fencing and screening comments made so far, saying the proposal was for masonry on the exterior of the subdivision, wooden privacy fences on the interior, and wrought iron along properties that back up to water features. Mr. Jobe added that wrought iron along the open spaces contributed to safety as well, as residents can see who's walking back there, and it's safer also to have more eyes on any children who may be walking near the ponds. Mr. Harvey said street lighting ought to be addressed and should have an appeal that matches the benches, etc., that are planned. Mr. Jobe said he was open to that idea and that he has a subdivision where they're doing ornamental lighting. C. Public Hearing Doug Cantu, 322 Little School Rd, addressed the Commission. He thanked the board for sending out the letter notifying him about the hearing. He said he'd said on the public hearing form that he was against the rezoning request because there wasn't a box to check to say he had some concerns. He gave a list of concerns, starting with a question about water pressure. He said his water pressure fluctuates already, will the new development have an effect? Mr. Harvey said they had a concept at this stage and will have details when it gets to the platting stage. Mr. Cantu then said when he'd bought his property on Little School, it was a nice bucolic setting, and now after the road project, it's different. He was also concerned about the detention pond. He asked if the HOA goes under, who is responsible for maintenance? He said that on the surface, he's in favor of the development, but he wants to make sure the people already living around there are taken care of. Mr. Harvey said they can't respond to the HOA scenario, but one thing they look for is how facilities will be maintained. If it's decommissioned, that's a legal issue, but as to the drainage, that's already a concern of the city, and the city had already done a study to determine what needs to be done. He said the drainage plans are a concept now, but the city does get to review the specifications at the platting stage, and the developer is basing the concept plan on the study that the city commissioned. He added that he hoped this project will even mitigate some of the problems people here have already. Mr. Cantu asked about the mosquito situation with the ponds, and Mr. Macatee said that mosquitos breed in stagnant pools and along the creek north of the property. He said that ponds with hard edges and aerators and fountains to keep the water stirred up discourages mosquito hatching. Mr. Cantu had expressed concern about concrete channels, and Mr. Macatee said they won't put concrete channels through anyone's backyard unless they have to, and they're trying to keep everything on the development site, rather than on adjacent properties. Mr. Cantu thanked Mr. Jobe for bringing the development to town and asked him to please take care of the residents already here. Roy Boenig, 1020 Kennedale Sublett Rd., addressed the Commission next. He said all the water from the site is going to drain onto his property. He said that he knows there will be houses on the site eventually and he wants to make it work the best we can with the water draining onto his property. He described the proposed drainage ponds from the last time someone tried to develop this property, and the city figured out it needed a study and conducted a drainage study for the area. That study said there should be 7.5 acres in two ponds, and one thing that concerns him is the five acres proposed for this site, is it 5 acres with water or without? Mr. 5 Harvey said they didn't have that detail yet, they just have a concept that says 4.9 acres of retention. Mr. Boenig said his concern was he doesn't know how much they're going to hold. Mr. Boenig said some of the water flows onto two of his neighbors' properties now, but with the drainage plans for the development, all the water flowing to the property of one of the neighbors, Paul Cartusciello, will come into the subdivision and then onto Mr. Boenig's property. Mr. Harvey said the drainage plans will help with the drainage on Mr. Boenig's property now, and Mr. Boenig said now he only gets a little drainage. Mr. Macatee started to answer Mr. Boenig's questions, and Ms. Roberts interrupted to ask if Mr. Macatee could wait to answer questions until after Mr. Boenig finished his comments. Mr. Boenig said we have no drainage problem now, and the reason we need a 7 acre detention pond is because of the subdivision. He says the pond needs to be 7.5 acres. Mr. Boenig added that the HOA idea bothered him because HOAs only work if there's a lawyer that lives in the subdivision and is on the HOA board, otherwise deed restrictions don't get enforced. If something happens with the retention pond, who does he turn to? It's the property owner or the city. He also said he thought the notification letters should have been sent to everyone along the creek. He asked if there were a restriction on how close a house can be built to the gas pipeline, and Mr. Harvey said there's a 30 foot easement in place, and a house can't be built in that easement. Mr. Boenig said fencing is his next concern. He said there are tanks on neighboring properties, and he has a batting cage and backstop on his property. When the houses get built, there will be a big temptation for kids to come play in his batting cage, so he would like a masonry fence installed by the developer, or he would also consider a wrought iron fence. He would like the fence to be put all the way across right away instead of waiting until all the houses are built in order to keep people off his property. He added that he knows stockade fence is what's in the ordinance, but he doesn't think that's a good remedy. Finally, he said that he does have some erosion, but it's about 100 feet to the north of his property line with the proposed development. D. Applicant Response Mr. Jobe said that for the HOA, they hire a professional third party company with an attorney. He uses a third party HOA company. When they turn it over to the home owners, they can choose to take over management themselves, but typically that doesn't happen, and it usually works really well. As to drainage, Mr. Macatee said it's physically impossible to redirect all the drainage intended for the basin to be directed into this subdivision. He said they're designing the ponds to handle every bit of water that naturally comes into the property. Part of the city's study calculated for different conditions and based on existing conditions with the subdivision being dirt. He believes the study says it's higher than it needs to be and sets a lower number to discharge. He said they're going to detain it down to the level recommended in the report. If 100 is coming out now, after the development, that number would be 65. What dumps onto Mr. Boenig's property from adjacent properties will be about the same as it is now. E. Staff Response and Summary of the Case Ms. Roberts said the HOA system is standard for new subdivisions, and staff is comfortable with that arrangement. She also said that a lot of the concerns expressed during the public hearing were shared by staff, and that's why staff liked the PD concept, because the city can have tighter controls than in a standard. subdivision. F. Action by the Commission Mr. Pirtle made a motion to approve the concept plan and the adopting ordinance, with the following changes: 1. Staff will add to the ordinance a requirement that there be a Home Owners' Association, which is related to the maintenance of the ponds, green areas, etc. 2. The developer must conduct a traffic study for entry /egress on Sonoma Drive. 3. House elevations should have more variety in use of stone, cedar, etc. 4. Houses backing to ponds or with sides adjacent to ponds shall have wrought iron fences. 5. Hardwood trees of a minimum of 2" caliper shall be planted for each house and along the street. I. 6. The developer will address the drainage on the property, and runoff is required to be less than is currently running off, utilizing the city's previous VC -3 study. 7. Staff will amend the language in the ordinance to make it clear that J- swing, side, and rear entry garages are all permitted. 8. Street lighting, signs, and benches shall be ornamental. Mr. Pirtle wasn't sure how to phrase the third item so that the house elevations would have more variety but would still give the developer flexibility in design. Mr. Herring suggested amending the motion so that the third item is a requirement for the front elevations to be 100% masonry excluding ornamentation such as structural timbers or structural brackets, and siding shall be limited to the rear of the house, and all houses shall be 90% masonry. Mr. Harvey said that Mr. Pirtle first had to finish his motion and then Mr. Herring could amend it. Mr. Pirtle stated that he had finished his motion and he agreed with Mr. Herring's modification. Mr. Herring made a motion to amend the motion as stated earlier. He asked if the ordinance mandated roof pitches, and Mr. Harvey said it was in the concept plan. Ms. Roberts said they could add it to the ordinance if it's not already included. Mr. Herring further amended the motion to require a minimum of 8/12 roof pitch, to require the fencing around the subdivision be masonry or pre -cast masonry, and that the fencing must be installed before the houses are built. Mr. Young seconded the motion as amended. There was no discussion, and the motion passed with all in favor except Mr. Harvey, who abstained. Mr. Harvey thanked everyone who came to the meeting asked the public to keep track of the case as it moved forward. He said this was not the final decision and that it will go to City Council next month. He again thanked everyone who came to the meeting and added that the Commission would love to see them more often. X. REPORTS /ANNOUNCEMENTS Ms. Roberts thanked Mr. Harvey and Mr. Pirtle for meeting with staff and a consultant the day before to discuss the Employment Center code. Mr. Young said he read in the Star - Telegram that Arlington had let the contract for Bowman Springs. Mr. Harvey said that with the new ordinance on appointments passed by Council, the opportunity to be appointed to a board now happens in October, and he encouraged those Commission members up for re- appointment to submit an application. Mr. Cowan announced that he was retiring from the Board and said that he had enjoyed his years of service. XI. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Cowan motioned to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Pirtle. The motion passed with all in favor except Mr. ES Rachel Roberts, Board Secretary �) -/3 Date 7