Planning & Zoning Commission

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes to the April 24, 2012 MEETING Members Present: Mr. Ralph Brown-------------------------------------------------------------Chair Mr. Toby Gross-----------------------------------------------------------Member Mrs. Shirley Childress---------------------------------------------------Member Mr. Riley Armstrong-----------------------------------------------------Member Mr. Bruce Gwartney-----------------------------------------------------Member Mr. Eddie Carrillo---------------------------------------------------------Member Mr. Chris Cortez----------------------------------------------------------Member Members Absent: None Council Present: None Staff Present: Mr. Louis Najar-----------------------------------------------------City Engineer Mr. Michael Vickers------------------------------------------------City Planner Mrs. Barbara Patterson-------------------------------------------City Attorney Mr. Louis Jaramillo--------------------------------------Zoning Administrator Ms. Amber Copeland--------------------------------------Zoning Technician CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Brown called the meeting to order and asked those who wished to speak to sign in. SWEARING IN Vice Chair Brown swore in the audience and Staff. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Gross nominated Mr. Brown for the office of Chair. Mr. Armstrong made the second and all voted in favor. Mr. Armstrong nominated Mrs. Childress for the office of Vice Chair. Mr. Carrillo made the second and all voted in favor. Mr. Armstrong nominated Mr. Carrillo for the office of secretary. Mr. Gross made the second and all voted in favor. INFORMATION ITEMS Mr. Jaramillo discussed the proposed increase application fees. He stated applications for zone changes, variances, and special uses currently begin at $150.00 and $50.00 for conditional uses. He stated an increase in application fees was needed to compensate for increases in postage, paper, and copier costs. He stated Staff wished to discuss increasing fees from $150.00 to $200.00. He stated conditional uses were only $50.00 but had similar mailing costs as other applications. He stated no increases to summary plat fees would be proposed and that an instructional sheet would be provided for the meeting in May. Mr. Brown asked Staff to explain the procedure for increasing fees. Mr. Jaramillo stated fees were raised in 2008 by the Commission but did not go to City Council. He stated the fee schedule is separate from the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Armstrong asked how current fees compare to other municipalities. Mr. Jaramillo stated the City still has low rate comparably and that other cities have different methods for handling Planning and Zoning issues. Mr. Vickers stated he had been informed by Mrs. Patterson that a fee increase collected by the City would likely be required to be heard by Council. He stated the Commission would make a recommendation to Council who would then vote on the matter. Mr. Brown asked Staff for a list of fees charged by comparably sized cities and Mr. Jaramillo stated he would prepare one.  MINUTES Chair Brown called for approval of the minutes of the March 27, 2012 minutes. Mr. Armstrong moved to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Carrillo made the second and all voted in favor. Mr. Armstrong moved to waive the reading of the ‘Land Use and Zoning Considerations’ and ‘Finding of Facts’ for the following case. Mr. Gross made the second. The motion was approved by a vote of seven in favor and zero against. CASE NO. 12-004: A Conditional Use Permit to Park a Travel Trailer in the Required Front and Side Yard Setbacks in an R-1 Residential District, Lot 26, Block 18 of Mesa Park #4, known as 8 Sunset Place, Sherry Hanson and Byron Hanson/Owners. Sherry Hanson, applicant, spoke in favor of the request. She stated she had brought her neighbor with her to verify that it was not a problem for others on her street. She stated her driveway was large and that three cars are parked in it in addition to the travel trailer. She stated her home is located on a cul-de-sac and that while she has a large backyard she cannot place the travel trailer in it without tearing down a cinder block fence. She stated the travel trailer belongs to her brother who is currently incarcerated and that she is storing it for him until he is released from prison in approximately a year. She stated that if the request was denied she would knock down her fence to place the trailer in the back yard but she would prefer to leave her fence intact. Mr. Armstrong asked if Mrs. Hanson understood the permit would apply only to that trailer. Mrs. Hanson stated she did and that no one would be allowed to live in the trailer or use it for storage. Tracy Buxton of 7 Sunset Place spoke in favor of the request. She stated she lives next door to Mrs. Hanson and that the trailer does not bother her. She stated it does not present a sight hazard and cannot be easily seen. Mr. Gross asked Mrs. Buxton if she owned her home and she stated she is purchasing it. Mr. Carrillo asked Staff if any protests had been received and Mr. Jaramillo stated none had been made. Mr. Cortez asked how long the trailer had been its present location. Mrs. Hanson stated it had been there for 3 months. She stated one neighbor had been upset with the trailer's location but that previous issues had been a factor. Mr. Brown asked Staff for a recommendation. Mr. Jaramillo stated the trailer met Zoning standards, was located on an oddly shaped lot, was at least 11' from the curb, and did not present a sight triangle hazard. He stated it may not require a permanent conditional use permit and that a timeline of 1 or 2 years could be suggested with a requirement to renew the permit at that time. He stated the date of Mrs. Hanson's brother's release could be considered. Mr. Gross asked Mrs. Hanson how long she believed the trailer would be in its present location and she stated she thought it would be approximately 18 months. She stated she would pay her brother's space rental for his first month out of incarceration so that he could move the trailer from her property. Mr. Brown asked if 18 months would be adequate and Mrs. Hanson stated that it would be to the best of her knowledge. She stated she had not placed the trailer in storage because she did not have the title and could not afford the cost. Mrs. Hanson stated the trailer was padlocked from the outside. Mr. Gross asked why a portion of the trailer had a tarp covering it and Mrs. Hanson stated the windshield was broken. Mr. Gross asked if the glass could be repaired to make the trailer look more pleasing and Mrs. Hanson stated she would fix it and remove the tarp. She stated she is the only one allowed in the trailer and that she will sell it if her brother informs her that he will be incarcerated for longer than the permit is allowed. MOTION Mr. Armstrong made a motion to approve Case 12-004 for a period of 18 months based on Findings of Facts and testimony provided with the requirement that the window be repaired and the tarp removed. Mr. Gross made the second. There was no further discussion. The motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0. 2  Mr. Armstrong moved to waive the reading of the ‘Land Use and Zoning Considerations’ and ‘Finding of Facts’ for the following case. Mr. Carrillo made the second. The motion was approved by a vote of six in favor and zero against. CASE 12-007: A Variance of 20' to the Required 35' Side Yard Setback in a C-2 Community Commercial District, a part of Lot 32, Block 7 of Mesa Park Addition No. 1, containing 1.28 acres, more or less, known as 2201 South Sunset Avenue, Allsups Convenience Stores/Owner, Darren Sowell Architects/Agent Angela Grapsas, agent, spoke in favor of the request. She stated the request to allow a 20' variance to the required side yard setback meets the requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance due to the irregular shape of the parcel. She stated the intention of the setback was to allow a 35' separation between residential and commercial uses. She that intention would be exceeded with the 15' setback and 25' alley. Mr. Armstrong asked if the new store will be built before the existing one is demolished. Mrs. Grapsas stated it would and that Allsups would be building 5 new stores in the City. She stated the existing store had extensive asbestos and that renovation would not be safe. Mr. Gross stated the variance would not be needed if the old store was torn down before the new one was constructed and Mrs. Grapsas stated that was correct. Mr. Gross stated the company was asking for assistance from the Commission in building the new store. Mrs. Grapsas stated the new store would be much larger, with an increase of 3,500 square feet, and that the new canopy would be much larger as well. She stated that the new facility would not adhere to Allsups' standards without being moved to a different location on the lot. She stated even if the other store were torn down first the new building would need to be built in the same spot. She stated dedication of R-O-W on both frontages also limited buildable space. Mr. Armstrong asked Staff if the lot was considered to be of an irregular shape. Mr. Vickers stated it is and that the variance would not set a precedent for other lots. Mr. Cortez asked Staff if setbacks are established from property lines or rights-of-way. Mr. Vickers stated it is not addressed in the Zoning Ordinance and part of the interpretation in the current case dealt with the setback being met by including the alley right-of-way. He stated the applicant would install a screen fence and that the setback in question could be considered either a side or rear yard due to the unusual shape of the lot. Mrs. Grapsas stated a specific type of fence had been requested by the neighboring property owners to match what is already in the area and that the applicant would install that fence. Mr. Armstrong asked if any protests had been received and Mr. Vickers stated they had not. Mr. Cortez asked for clarification on the additional right-of-way. Mrs. Grapsas stated an additional 40' along Poe Street and 50' along Sunset Avenue. Mr. Cortez asked if the underground fuel tanks would be in the right-of-way. Mrs. Grapsas stated the new property line would be measured from the newly dedicated right-of-way and that fuel tanks would be located inside the property line. Mr. Cortez asked if the old tanks would be left in their current place and Mrs. Grapsas stated they would be removed. Mr. Cortez asked if any previous environmental issues had been found and Mrs. Grapsas stated the property had been tested and no issues were discovered. Mr. Brown asked Staff for an opinion. Mr. Vickers stated Staff supported the request and that no precedent would be set. MOTION Mr. Carrillo made the motion to approve Case 12-007 as presented. Mrs. Childress made the second. Mrs. Patterson asked the Commission if Findings of Facts were included in the motion. Mr. Carrillo amended his motion to include Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Mrs. Childress made the second. There was no further discussion. The motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0. Other Business: Mr. Jaramillo stated the agents and neighboring property owners in Case 11-019 had stated they were close to an agreement. Mr. Brown asked if the City was involved in negotiations and Mr. Jaramillo stated it was not. Mr. Brown asked if part of the reason for postponement was to 3 determine who would build the street at the request of the City. Mr. Vickers stated the applicant and neighboring property owners were determining responsibility for construction of the street and the City's position was that the street needs to be built. He stated the City was not involved in negotiations. Mrs. Patterson stated that because the case was postponed at the previous meeting a new motion would be required to postpone the case to the next meeting. MOTION Mrs. Childress made a motion to postpone Case 11-019 until the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Armstrong made the second. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Mr. Jaramillo stated two cases had been received but Staff required more information. Mrs. Patterson stated an applicant in a case had made a records request asking for mailing addresses for Commission members. She stated the City's position had been to request that communications be made through Staff with information forwarded as appropriate. She stated the Commission is a judicial body and that is compromised through ex-parte communications. She stated if applicants approach Commissioners to discuss cases that it is recommended to inform applicants that all information should be delivered during the public hearing. She stated sites can be viewed but that all communications should take place during the public hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m. _________________________________ ______________________________ Ralph Brown- Chair Shirley Childress- Vice Chair 4