Loading...
2009_11.19 PZ Minutes1032 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2009 KENNEDALE MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 405 MUNICIPAL DRIVE COUNCIL CHAMBERS WORK SESSION, 6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING, 7:00 P.M. Chairman Hunn called the work session to order at 6:00 P.M. Members present: David Hunn (Chairman), Ernest Harvey (Vice-Chairman), Lori Bryan, Ray Cowan, Frank Fernandez, Charles Overstreet, and Billy Simpson Staff present: James Cowey (Director of Development Services) and Rachel Roberts (Planner). CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL WORK SESSION, 6:00 I-A. POSSIBLE CHANGES TO COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATIONS The Commission agreed to move forward to a public hearing on the recommended changes to commercial zoning district classifications. The Commission would like to have the public hearing at the December meeting. I-B POSSIBLE CHANGES TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATIONS Ms. Roberts reviewed the staff report for this item. The Commission discussed the advantages and disadvantages of using form-based codes and asked about how much public input would be needed. The Commission asked staff to bring information on Fort Worth’s form-based codes to the upcoming joint work session with City Council. Staff will also bring to the joint Council work session information about form-based codes in general so that the Council may give comments on whether form-based codes are a good approach to investigate further for meeting the residential zoning district objectives assigned from the strategic planning process. The Commission also asked staff to find out when the city is planning to update its comprehensive plan. 1033 I-C DEVELOPMENT NEAR OIL & GAS WELLS Mr. Fernandez stated that he had heard reports about gas wells emitting dangerous levels of benzene and asked staff to look at how cities can investigate or regulate the release of benzene. Mr. Cowan noted that although the draft changes to the oil & gas ordinance address subdivision regulations, no changes to the subdivision regulations had been suggested. Ms. Roberts said that she would add changes to the subdivision regulations and would bring those to the next meeting. I-D REGULATIONS FOR GUEST HOUSES The Commission discussed the ordinance changes proposed by staff. The Commission asked staff to remove items (i) and (g) and to clarify or edit item (h). The work session closed 7:03 P.M. REGULAR MEETING Chairman Hunn called the regular meeting to order at 7:08 P.M., and Ms. Roberts called roll. II. VISITORS/CITIZENS FORUM No visitors or citizens wished to speak at this time. III. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CASE #09-24 A. STAFF PRESENTATION OF CASE Ms. Roberts presented the case, and told the Commission that staff had no objections to plat approval but would like a few minor changes made to the plat drawing, should the plat be approved. The Commission asked staff questions about the existing structures, to which staff responded, stating that there can be only one primary residence per lot, so that when a new house is built on the applicants’ lot, the old structure will have to be removed or demolished. B. APPLICANT PRESENTATION OF CASE The applicant said that they would remove the existing house when their new house is built. C. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CASE #09-24 No one wished to speak on this case. D. STAFF RESPONSE AND SUMMARY OF CASE Staff had no objections to plat approval. 1034 E. APPLICANT RESPONSE Applicant had no response. F. ACTION ON CASE The Commission discussed the case. Mr. Overstreet made a motion to approve the replat, with the condition that the staff be corrected to show which building will be removed and that the side and rear setback lines be shown on the plat drawing. Mr. Cowan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CASE #09-25 A. STAFF PRESENTATION OF CASE Ms. Roberts presented the case. She told the Commission that they had advertised it as a replat, but it is actually a replat and a final plat. The replat requires a public hearing. She added that was no proposal to change the zoning with this case. The existing structures will be non-conforming where existing property lines will be maintained, and where new property lines are proposed, the existing structures do meet setback requirements. Staff has no objection to approval of this replat. Chairman Hunn stated that the property owner name shown on the plat drawing was incorrect for Lot 13A6, the property just to the west of the subject site, as that property sold about a year ago. Ms. Roberts said that if the Commission approves the plat, then they should add a condition that the owner name be corrected. Mr. Harvey asked staff to review which properties needed a replat and which needed a final plat. B. APPLICANT PRESENTATION OF CASE Dave Kochalka of Kimley-Horn Associates represented the property owner and told the Commission he would be happy to answer their questions. He asked for their approval of the plat. C. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CASE #09-25 Brandon McKinley of Chesapeake addressed the Commission and said that he was available to answer the Commission’s questions. Gerald Ostand, of 3807 Park Flower Ct, Arlington, TX addressed the Commission next. He said that he can’t get a response from Chesapeake when he calls with questions and that Chesapeake’s contractors had been using his parking lot without permission. Robert Lee, of 1317 N. Bowman Springs, Kennedale, spoke against drilling at the subject site. There being no more registered speakers, Chairman Hunn closed the public hearing. 1035 D. STAFF RESPONSE AND SUMMARY OF CASE Ms. Roberts reiterated that the plat would change only the property lines and that the use would not be changed at this time. She added that since staff found no conflict with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Future Land Use Plan, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, or any ordinances, they had recommended approval of the plat request. E. APPLICANT RESPONSE The applicant had no response. F. ACTION ON CASE Mr. Harvey moved to recommend approval of the final plat and replat request, pending correction of the owner name on Lot 13A6. The motion was seconded by Ms. Bryan. The request passed unanimously. Mr. Cowey added that all the cases being heard tonight would be heard before city council on December 10 th . V. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CASE #09-26 A. STAFF PRESENTATION OF CASE Staff presented the case. She said that a property across the street is zoned commercial, but the Future Land Use Plan had designated both that property and the applicant’s property as low density residential. The utilities are sufficient for some commercial uses. Projected traffic counts do not appear to be sufficient to support commercial use. Staff does not believe that the property in question is unusable for its current zoning, and it does not believe that the area would be enhanced by a change to commercial zoning. Based on these factors, and because the rezoning would be in conflict with the comprehensive plan, staff recommended denial without prejudice of the request for rezoning. Mr. Harvey asked if there was an opportunity to discuss C-0 districts, and Ms. Roberts replied that the Commission had the authority to recommend a lower zoning district. Ms. Roberts added that staff recommended denial of the application for rezoning, but that if the Commission voted to recommend approval, staff would recommend they approve a C-0 district, which is a less intensive use. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan says that commercial development should not encroach into residential areas, and as the areas surrounding Mr. Walther’s are generally residential in nature, staff believes a commercial use would be an encroachment. C-0 is the least intense commercial district and is what staff believes would be the most compatible commercial district within that area. B. APPLICANT PRESENTATION OF CASE George Faris of 6650 Trinity Heights Blvd in Forth Worth, a designated representative of the applicant, presented the applicant’s case. Mr. Walther believed the rezoning would be appropriate with the future road plans. The applicant believes that the road plans would cause traffic to come very close to the existing house, creating an adverse impact on using the 1036 property for residential use. There is a pipeline easement to the south that would provide a 30’ buffer, and Mr. Walther would provide landscaping to create an additional buffer, and he could also provide landscaping to the east. C. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CASE #09-26 Tommy Lalonde, of 436 Little School Road, spoke against the rezoning request. There being no other registered speakers for this item, Chairman Hunn closed the public hearing. D. STAFF RESPONSE AND SUMMARY OF CASE Ms. Roberts passed around a copy of the proposed right-of-way acquisition from Mr. Walther’s property for the upcoming road improvements . She stated that staff appreciates the applicant’s [representative] comments about the road improvements making the property more suitable for residential use, adding that although traffic projection don’t indicate that this will be a high-traffic intersection, projections can be wrong. However, because the rezoning conflicts with the comprehensive plan, staff recommends denial without prejudice. Ms. Roberts then responded to questions from the Commission. E. APPLICANT RESPONSE The Commission asked questions of the applicant’s representative. F. ACTION ON CASE The Commission discussed the case. Mr. Fernandez moved to recommend denying the rezoning request without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harvey, and the motion passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CASE #09-27 A. STAFF PRESENTATION OF CASE Staff presented the case and responded to questions from the Commission. Ms. Roberts added that staff was concerned about the mutual use and fence easement and whether a new property owner [of the new second lot] would have the full use and enjoyment of his property; she said that staff wanted to make sure that the proposed easement would not violate Sec. 17- 299(4) of the Kennedale city code. B. APPLICANT PRESENTATION OF CASE Marc Ahrens, husband of the applicant, presented the applicant’s case. He said that he understood the questions on the easement but believed that the easement would not interfere with any construction or with the use of the property. He said that he had talked with several of his neighbors over the previous few days and that they had signed the plat document and said they weren’t opposed to the replat. 1037 The Commission asked why the applicant about the easement and why he was unwilling to give up the seven feet. Mr. Ahrens said he didn’t see a reason why the easement would be prohibitive to anyone else buying the property. He sa id he added the easement in order to meet city lot width requirements. He wanted the easement so that he could keep the fence and the trees, which would screen his property from the neighboring lot. The Commission asked additional questions about the seven feet in the easement. Mr. Ahrens responded that when he bought the property, it has utility and other easements in place, and that anyone who buy s a property is fully aware of what they’re buying because it’s on the plat. The Commission stated that easements are usually for the common good, whereas this easement is just for the applicant’s benefit. C. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CASE #09-27 Elmer Mosely of 1210 Vera Lane spoke against the request for replat. He told the Commission that all the applicant had to do is move the fence and then everyone would bless it. Ira Williams did not wish to address the Commission but registered an opinion against the replat request. There being no other registered speakers for this item, Chairman Hunn closed the public hearing. D. STAFF RESPONSE AND SUMMARY OF CASE Ms. Roberts advised the Commission that because of the variance, property owners of adjacent properties within 200’ of the subject property and within the original subdivision could protest the replat, in which case a supermajority vote of the Commission would be required for approval. Only one of the qualified property owners was present, Mr. Ira Williams. Ms. Roberts asked if he had any objection to the variance, and he did not, although he did object to the easement. Ms. Roberts told the Commission did not object to a mutual use easement but did object to the fence easement, since it would interfere with the new property owner’s full use and enjoyment of the lot. The owner of the new lot would have to go around the fence in order to reach that seven feet on his property. Ms. Roberts stated that the Commission had the option to approve the replat, deny the replat, or approve it with conditions. She said that if the Commission voted to recommend approval of the replat, that they include the following conditions: amend the title of the plat drawing to include the preparation date; amend the plat drawing to show all existing structures that are permanent structures, if the shed on the property is a permanent structure; to grant the 30’ 1038 variance; that the property owners provide a notarized, written statement that the new lots will not remove any deed restrictions, because the replat cannot remove any deed restrictions; and that the Commission make a statement about the fence. The Commission asked the applicant wasn’t going to move his fence. E. APPLICANT RESPONSE The applicant stated that there were no deed restrictions on the property. He also said that there was a gate on the corner of the property, so the new owner would not have to walk around to the other property in order to reach the property on the other side of the fence. The Commission asked Mr. Ahrens why he didn’t want to move his fence, and the applicant said that it was the expense. He hadn’t realized the fence would need to be farther over when he put it in, and he didn’t want to have to rip it out. He said he had followed an existing fence line when he installed the new fence. Mr. Mosely added an additional comment, saying that the owner of the new property would have to step onto the applicant’s property in order to reach the property on the other side of the fence. F. ACTION ON CASE Mr. Harvey made a motion to approve Case 09-27, with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant shall amend title of the plat drawing to include the preparation date, to conform with standards set forth in the city code; and 2. The applicant shall amend the plat drawing to include all existing structures and to note which structures are permanent structures, as this will allow staff to verify that no structures encroach on the setback lines; and 3. That the Commission grant a variance to allow a 30’ front setback originally required, rather than requiring the 40’ setback now required; and 4. The applicant shall amend the plat to remove the mutual use and fence easement to the north side of the plat. The motion was seconded by Mr. Overstreet, and the motion passed unanimously. VII. MINUTES: Approval of minutes from the October 15, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Overstreet made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 15 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Ms. Bryan seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. 1039 VIII. STAFF REPORTS: Update on City Projects Ms. Roberts said that the Christmas Tree lighting ceremony would be held on December 1 st and that the Board of Adjustment meeting had been moved to December 8 th . She also said that things were moving along with TownCenter and that staff believed that the new construction of paving and the façade im provements would begin in early next year. Mr. Cowey provided updates on road projects on Mansfield Cardinal and Dick Price and said that work on Sonora Park was close to beginning. Chairman Hunn asked about Bowman Springs, and Mr. Cowey said it would be going out to bid soon and that construction would begin in the spring. Chairman Hunn closed the regular meeting. The Commission re-opened the work session. RESUME WORK SESSION I-E. OUTSIDE STORAGE REGULATIONS Ms. Roberts reviewed the staff report for this item and proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance, and the Commission discussed the issue. The Commission asked for several changes to what staff had proposed. I-F. GUARANTEES AND MAINTENANCE BONDS The Commission discussed the issue of guarantees and maintenance bonds for subdivisions. The length of time for which developers are required to provide bonds concerns the Commission. Ms. Roberts had suggested the possibility of requiring maintenance bonds after a subdivision is built-out by a certain percentage. The Commission asked staff to investigate this further. IX. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Harvey moved to adjourn the meeting, and Mr. Overstreet seconded the motion. The motion passed, and the meeting closed at 8:53 P.M. _____________________________ David Hunn, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission ATTEST: __________________________ Rachel Roberts Planner