10.17.1991 PZ MinutesPage 360
MINUTES OF
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 17, 1991
COMMUNITY CENTER - 7:30 PM.
Vice Chairperson Roger Hurlbut called the meeting to order at 7:30
PM.
Members present were Janna Brimer, Glynn Cavasos, Bill Cromer,
Melinda Esco, Cliff Hallmark and Roger Hurlbut. Members absent
were Joe Moniz and Mary Salinas.
Staff present were Ted Rowe and Kathy Turner.
ITEM NO. 1 - Approval of minutes dated September 19th and 25th.
Bill Cromer made a motion to accept the minutes of September 19th
and 25th as submitted, second by Cliff Hallmark. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 2 - Consideration of a Replat of J.M. Estess Home Tracts
to Lots 4R and 5R, Requested by Mr. & Mrs. Jack Good.
Mr. and Mrs. Jack Good, land owners, Mr. Steve Keeton, surveyor and
Mr. and Mrs. Kenney Hall, buyers of Lot 5R were present to
represent the replat.
Mrs. Joane Good stated that they were selling off 2 acres, and had
dedicated a 20' right -of -way for future widening of Sublett Road
which would be Lot 5R and were replatting the remaining 18 acres
into Lot 4R without a dedication.
Mrs. Good questioned why they had to replat Lot 4 when they are not
doing anything to that lot. It was the consensus of the P &Z that
if Lot 4 was not replatted into Lot 4R to include the back portion
of Lot 5, it would leave the back portion of Lot 5 land locked.
Mrs. Brimer then asked about the R.O.W. dedication on Lot 4R. She
wanted to know if there was an ordinance that stated whether the
P &Z had to require it at the time of replat or loose the rights to
the road. Mr. Rowe said that the Master Plan Land Use book states
that it should be dedicated at the time of the platting process.
Mr. Hurlbut questioned the 20' dedication on Lot 5R. Stated that
the Master Plan calls for 110 foot plus or minus, and in Cheatham
and Associates letter they recommended 25'. He wanted to know what
the other land owners had given in the past. Mr. Rowe replied that
they have given 20'. Mrs. Good replied that according to the
survey it is 30' from the center of the road to their property and
the 20' dedication would make 50'. Mr. Good said that they had
received a letter from Ted Rowe stating that it was okay for them
to dedicate the 20' instead of 25', and if they had to give 25' it
would alter the whole entire dimensions on Lot 5R which would cost
them more money to replat to give the Hall's exactly two acres.
Mrs. Good asked about who would maintain the 20' strip once it was
dedicated? Mr. Rowe replied there was an ordinance that stated the
homeowner was responsible for the property.
Mr. Hall questioned fence requirements for front yard setbacks.
Mr. Hurlbut stated that the city had ordinances regulating the
height of fences in front yard setbacks, and it was going to be
discussed later on in the meeting.
Page 361
Mr. Hurlbut asked Mr, and Mrs. Good if they had any problems with
the suggestions by Cheatham and Associates letter dated October 2,
1991. Mrs. Good replied that she hasn't seen the letter but did
speak with Mr. David Mayes from Cheatham's office, and that Mr.
Mayes told her that the 20' dedication should be a 25' dedication
and that was the only recommendation he was making. Mrs. Good said
that according to the letter they had received from Mr, Ted Rowe
the master plan called for 100' and that's why there was a 20'
dedication. She also noted that they had based the entire replat
on that letter.
Mr. Hurlbut read Cheatham's recommending comments to the Goods.
Mrs. Good replied that they are not selling Lot 4R and they would
not give a 5' utility easement at all. Mr. Rowe replied that the
city always requests easements at the time of replat and T.U.
Electric acts as the coordinator.
After further discussion, Bill Cromer made a motion to accept the
replat of Lots 4R and 5R, J. M. Estess Home Tracts, second by Cliff
Bellmark,
Mr. Hurlbut moved to amend Mr. Cromer's motion to state that P&Z
accept the replat of Lots 4R and 5R, J. M. Estes Homes Tracts, and
to forward a recommendation to City Council for final approval
contingent upon Cheatham and Associates October 2, 1991 letter:
(1) label as "Final Plat", (2) Cheatham requested 25' but P&Z
accepted 20' dedication on Lot 5R as shown on plat, and to add a
rider that City Council make the final decision whether there
should be a R.O.W. dedication on Lot 4R, (3) all signatures should
be added and notarized, (4) building setback should be changed to
30', items (5) and (6) be deleted. Second by Cliff Hallmark.
, ,
Motion carried.
NOTE: P&Z wanted the City Council to recognize that this is the
first request for a replat of property frontage on Kennedale
Sublett Road where the party wanted to continue to replat but had
objections to R.O.W. dedication to the city, and would hope that
City Council would make note of that and the difficult position the
P&Z Commissioners are in when an application may be presented to
them again.
ITEM NO. 4 - Consideration of Creating Special Exception Criteria
for Front Yard Fences.
Mr. John Berry representing the Board of Adjustments was present
and stated that a situation had arisen where a 6' fence was erected
where a neighbor in essence was fencing off another neighbor in the
front yard trying to take care of a oituatioo. We felt strongly
that we wished we could help this man with his problem. We looked
at situations what the city could do in terms of grass cutting,
terms of health violations, terms of trash situation, but there
wasn't really a whole lot we could do as a Board of Adjustment
because the ordinance stated that it could not be in excess of 30
inches.
Mr. Berry took a poll driving through Kennedale and found one of
the biggest problems to be in the event that a fence does not
exceed 6', a building permit is not reguired. Be drove through
Kennedale to spot check and he could give 20 addresses that do not
meet the criteria of a 30" fence in the front yard. The problem is
that the B.O.A. will not act on any one of those fences unless a
neighbor or another citizen oomplaioo. In the event that they
complain the city in essence has to enforce the ordinance and in
turn they have the option to either tear down the fence, cutting it
Page :362
down to code - 30" or bring it to the B.O.A. which at this point we
cannot do anything with because it is an ordinance and they cannot
do anything with an ordinance. The B.O.A. cannot grant a variance
on an ordinance.
The B.O.A. asked that the P&Z give them a new ordinance that would
give them some lee-way in terms of making some special exceptions
on fences unless for specified height of buildings or size of lots.
Mr. Hurlbut questioned what kind of exceptions? Mr. Berry replied
height, it could be a side fence situation, it could be height with
an exception that it be seen through for police protection and
visibility.
Mr. Hurlbut questioned why would someone want to deviate from the
ordinance, and can you articulate certain guidelines where you
would let someone do this. Mr. Hurlbut said he drove by and saw
the situation and doesn't feel this is good example to let anyone
grant an exception to the ordinance. Mr. Berry agreed with Mr.
Hurlbut and felt that one way to resolve this is to require a
building permit for any type of fence regardless of the height.
This way the city could regulate fences when someone applies for a
permit.
Mr. Berry stated that he was the one that suggested that they abide
by the ordinance and cut the fence down to 30 inches. He
personally feels that the ordinance is good and it serves the best
Interest to the city.
Mrs. Brimer asked if the B.O.A. wanted P&Z to make a recommendation
to adjust the ordinance to include an out for special occasions so
it doesn't pin the P&Z down to one decision. Mr. Berry stated that
was what the B.O.A. was asking. Mr. Rowe replied that the P&Z
could not do that, they could make a recommendation to Council and
Council had final decision.
Ms. Esco asked if that was a decision that the B.O.A. should be
making - what is right and what isn't right?
Mrs. Brimer felt that if they allowed exceptions then this would
open a can of worms and there would be a number of cases coming to
the board.
Mr. Berry said what he would like is to get some direction from the
P&Z now so that the B.O.A. can handle a situation point blank. Mr.
Berry stated that if he doesn't take back a clear precise
statement, as to whether the P&Z wants the B.O.A. to follow the
ordinance as it is, he feels that they are going to face a similar
situation within the next month, and they need guidance.
Mr. Hurlbut moved that the P&Z not recommend a change to any
portion of the ordinance and that the city continue to enforce the
ordinance as it is written until such time there may be an
exception made to a particular category eg. rail fences in
residential areas. Second by Janna Brimer. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 3 - Consideration of a Replat of Pecan Acres to Lots
6R1R, 7R1R and 7R2R, Block 1, Requested by Mr. Kim
Brimer.
*NOTE* Mrs. Janna Brimer removed herself from the P&Z Commission
to present her replat.
Mrs. Brimer asked P&Z to approve the replat as presented which
would move the property line between Lots 7R1 and 7R2 and Lot 6R1.
That is the only change. Lots 7R1 and 7R2 are platted with 1.2
acres on original plat. They sold Lot 7R1 and the owner only
Page 363
wanted 1 acre, and they felt it would be in the best interest to
move the entire line to make Lots 7R1 and 7R2 one acre tracts.
Mr. Hurlbut moved to make a motion to forward the Final Plat of
Lots 6R1R, 7R1R and 7R2R, Block 1, Pecan Acres to City Council for
approval subject to the addition of the present owner of Lot 7R1R
and that their name be accordingly added throughout the plat for
owner/developer dedication and that the legal description of the
property owned by the Brimers' be only of the property owned by the
Brimers' and that there be a second legal description,
corresponding signatures, and sign-off for a notary for Lot 7R1R.
Second by Bill Cromer. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 5 - General Discussion.
There being no further discussion, Bill Cromer made a motion to
adjourn the meeting at 9:25 PM. Second by Glynn Cavasos. Motion
carried.
APPROVED:
Cbeirp�
ATTEST:
-44A Galtf/C
Plannivg Zoning Secretary
sbn, Mary Salinas
(