Loading...
2009_10.15 PZ Minutes1026 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 2009 KENNEDALE MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 405 MUNICIPAL DRIVE COUNCIL CHAMBERS WORK SESSION, 6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING, 7:00 P.M. Vice-Chairman Harvey called the work session to order at 6:00 P.M. After roll call, Vice- Chairman Harvey asked Mr. Galloway to partici pate in the meeting so that the Commission would have a quorum. Members present: Ernest Harvey (Vice-Chairm an), Ray Cowan, Frank Fernandez, and Jason Galloway. David Hunn joined the meeting at 6:15 P.M., and Lori Bryan joined the meeting at 6:17 P.M. Staff present: James Cowey (Building Official) and Rachel Roberts (Planner). CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL WORK SESSION, 6:00 I. POSSIBLE CHANGES TO COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATIONS Ms. Roberts presented the staff report for this issue. The Commission agreed with the changes drafted by staff and is ready to move forward with a public hearing on the changes. II. POSSIBLE CHANGES TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATIONS Ms. Roberts reviewed the staff report on this item, and Mr. Harvey gave background on the issue. The Commission members discussed and asked staff to outline the pros and cons of using form-based codes for the next meeting. Several Commission members emphasized the importance of having flexibility in whatever z oning changes are used to address this issue. III. DEVELOPMENT NEAR OIL & GAS WELLS The Commission asked staff to have a discussion with the oil and gas operators in Kennedale in order to get input from them on the proposed changes to the oil and gas ordinance. The work session closed 6:55 P.M. The Regular Meeting was called to order at 7:07 P.M. 1027 REGULAR MEETING Mr. Hunn called the regular meeting to order, and Ms. Roberts called roll. I. VISITORS/CITIZENS FORUM No visitors or citizens wished to speak at this time. II. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CASE #09-23 Case #PZ 09-23 to receive comments regarding a replat of approximately 1.763 acres, from legal description of Lot 21, Blk 1, Murray Hill Estates, Tarrant County, Texas to that of Lot 21R and Lot 21R1, Blk 1, as requested by Stephanie Ahrens. The physical address is 1228 Kennedale Sublett Rd, Kennedale. A. STAFF PRESENTATION OF CASE Ms. Roberts presented the case to the Commission. The replat met most of the lot requirements for the property’s zoning district, exc ept it did not meet the lot width requirement. The applicant asked for a variance from the lot width requirement. Ms. Roberts reviewed the standards that must be met to receive a variance. The Commission asked questions of staff about the case. Mr. Harvey asked if the Planning & Zoning Commission has authority to grant a variance in this case, and staff replied that they believe the Commission does have that authority. B. APPLICANT PRESENTATION OF CASE Mr. Ahrens presented the case on behalf of his wife, Stephanie Ahrens, who was unable to attend the meeting. He argued that the variance should be granted because otherwise they wanted to preserve a line of trees along the fence line, he would have to move a fence, and an existing metal building would have to be moved. Mr. Ahrens responded to questions from the Commission, including questions about the size and type of tree that would be destroyed and also what the Ahrens planned to do with the second [proposed] lot. Mr. Ahrens told the Commission that they planned to sell the new lot, and that the trees were 5” [caliper] cedar trees. The trees would not necessarily be destroyed if the fence and property line were moved, but it may be that they would have to be destroyed if a building were constructed on the second lot. Mr. Ahrens added that the replat would make the second [proposed] lot available for use, rather than sitting vacant. C. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CASE #09-23 Five members of the public submitted forms for the public hearing, with four people registering to address the Commission and two declining to speak but registering an opinion in opposition to the request for a replat. Ira Williams of 1202 Vera Lane declined to speak at the meeting but registered in opposition to the replat. 1028 Patricia Skorpinski of 1212 Vera Lane declined to speak at the meeting but registered in opposition to the replat. Elmer Moseley of 1210 Vera Lane registered to address the Commission. He stated that he didn’t believe the proposed new lot met the 20,000 square foot lot size requirement set in the deed restrictions for the subdivision. He also stated that a house built on the lot would have to be really small to accommodate the required side-entry garage. He said that Ira Williams was not notified, as his notification letter was sent to the wrong address. He asked the Commission to table the case for 30 days so that the neighbors could meet to discuss the deed restrictions. Charles and Linda Gray of 1203 Vera Lane registered to address the Commission. Mr. Gray addressed the Commission and provided an overview of the subdivision’s history and the property in question. He said that there had been a fence on the property before but it was farther over. He stated that a smaller lot size would change the atmosphere of the subdivision and diminish the value of the area. Mr. Gray also said that the original property owner [prior to Mr. and Mrs. Ahrens] had tried to replat the property before but would not dedicate the frontage [right-of-way] the City wanted. Mr. Gray said that deed restrictions require side-entry garages, although not all homes on the street comply with this requirement. Mr. Harvey asked if the opposition was against the replat or against the lot width. Mr. Gray said if the property were to be replatted, he thought the property ought to be replatted so to hold a structure similar to the others on the street. The Commission responded to concerns from the public and noted that the proposed second lot would be at least 20,000 square feet. D. STAFF RESPONSE AND SUMMARY OF CASE Staff responded to several other questions from the Commission. Ms. Roberts said that she had accidentally used the wrong address due to incorrect data from the appraisal district. She added that she would send notification letters to anyone interested in the upcoming city council public hearing on the replat. Ms. Roberts also stated that the original lot was large enough to be divided into two lots and still fit the neighborhood but that the Commission should determine whether the Ahrens met the standards for a hardship. Mr. Harvey asked for clarification on where the lo t width is measured, and staff replied that it is measured at the front setback line. Mr. Hunn a sked if the lot would meet the requirements if the property line were widened to 100 feet from the front property line to the front setback line, and Mr. Cowey replied that it would. Mr. Cowey then added that staff wanted the public to be informed and involved in the process. He then gave an overview of the case. Mr. Cowan asked if staff had a recommendation to make to the Commission, and Ms. Roberts said that because of the variance, staff would prefer not to make a recommendation. E. APPLICANT RESPONSE Mr. Ahrens said that the newer fence was put in the same location as the fence that had been there before. He added that he is in the construction business and knows that the proposed lot is more than an adequate width for a decent-sized house that would still fit the feel of the subdivision. 1029 F. ACTION ON CASE Mr. Harvey wondered if the applicant would be willing to change the proposed property boundaries to make the lot more compatible. He added that if the applicant would change the boundary, then a variance would not be necessary. Mr. Hunn asked the Commission members if they thought Mr. and Mrs. Ahrens had demonstrated a hardship warranting a variance. One of the conditions is than an extraordinary hardship or practical difficult would result from strict compliance with the regulations; Mr. Hunn stated that he did not believe this was the case. Mr. Harvey also stated that he did not believe the applicant had a unique hardship. Mr. Galloway added that he did not believe the cedar trees counted as unique environmental qualities, and other Commission members stated that because the trees would be on the second lot does not necessarily mean that the trees would be destroyed. Mr. Harvey made a motion to deny the replat on the basis that the replat does not meet the R- 2 specifications—the 100-foot width at the build line—and it does not present a unique hardship to grant a variance at such time. Mr. Fernandez seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously [Chairman Hunn abstains from voting on motions before the Commission]. Ms. Roberts stated the case would go before the City Council on November 5 with the Commission’s recommendation. III. MINUTES: Approval of minutes from the September 17, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Fernandez moved to accept the minutes as presented, and Mr. Cowan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. IV. STAFF REPORTS: Update on City Projects Ms. Roberts and Mr. Cowey provided an update on city road projects. Ms. Roberts told the Commission that the city had applied for two grants, one for sidewalks around TownCenter and one for brownfields. Mr. Cowey added that the City is still working on acquiring property for Sonora Park. The Commission asked a number of questions about the road projects, and staff responded. The Commission asked for the status of the planning & zoning cases sent to Council in the previous month, and staff provided that information. V. RESUME WORK SESSION The Commission closed the regular meeting and re-opened the work session. The Commission discussed future planning generally and also discussed which issues on the list for future consideration it would like to work on next. 1030 VIII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Harvey motioned to adjourn the meeting, and Mr. Cowan seconded the motion. All members voting in favor, the meeting adjourned at 8:47 P.M. _____________________________ David Hunn, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission ATTEST: __________________________ Rachel Roberts Planner