Planning & Zoning Commission

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes to the May 29, 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. Chris Cortez----------------------------------------------------------Member Members Absent: Mr. Eddie Carrillo---------------------------------------------------------Member Council Present: None Staff Present: Mr. Louis Najar-----------------------------------------------------City Engineer Mr. Michael Vickers------------------------------------------------City Planner Mr. Louis Jaramillo--------------------------------------Zoning Administrator Ms. Amber Copeland--------------------------------------Zoning Technician Mrs. Corrie G. Darr--------------------------------------City Attorney's Office CALL TO ORDER Chair Brown called the meeting to order and asked those who wished to speak to sign in. SWEARING IN Chair Brown swore in the audience and Staff. INFORMATION ITEMS Chair Brown instructed those wishing to appeal a decision by the Commission on how to do so. MINUTES Chair Brown called for approval of the minutes of the April 24, 2012 minutes. Mrs. Childress stated a correction should be made to the minutes: then-Vice Chair Brown had sworn in the audience and not former Chair Hanson. Mr. Armstrong moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Mrs. Childress made the second and all voted in favor. Mrs. Childress moved to waive the reading of the ‘Land Use and Zoning Considerations’ and ‘Finding of Facts’ for the following case. Mr. Armstrong made the second. The motion was approved by a vote of six in favor and zero against. CASE 12-008: Revocation of a Special Use Permit for a Church and/or School and A Zone Change from R-3 Residential District to R-1 Residential District, Lots 20, 21, and 22 of La Sierra Unit 2A, also known as 2 Brazos Circle, 902 Brazos Street, and 900 Brazos Street, McClellan Oil Corporation and Mathew Skariah/Owners. Mr. Jaramillo spoke in favor of the request. He stated the area was rezoned in 2004 and the lots in the request were an oversight. He stated Aldersgate Methodist Church had originally had a Special Use Permit for a Daycare/School on a large tract of land which was then broken up and sold to McClellan Oil Corporation. He stated McClellan Oil Corporation then subdivided the lots and created La Sierra Unit 2A but the R-3 zoning and Special Use were not changed. He stated Staff supported changing the zoning to R1 District and revoking the Special Use Permit. MOTION  Mr. Armstrong made a motion to approve Case 12-008 based on Findings of Facts and Land Use and Zoning Considerations. Mr. Gross made the second. There was no further discussion. The motion passed by a vote of six to zero. Mr. Cortez recused himself. Chair Brown stated a protest letter had been given to the Commission at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Jaramillo stated the letter had been hand delivered on May 24th and was not able to be included in the packet. He stated the protest represented more than 20% of property owners within 100' and that approval would require a positive vote from five out of seven Commission members. Mrs. Childress 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 five in favor and zero against. CASE 12-005: A Zone Change from an R-3 Residential District to a C-2 Community Commercial District, a portion of the NW1/4 NW1/4, of Section 3, T. 11 S., R. 24 E., being the north 85', also known as Lot 4, known as 105 North Atkinson Avenue, Fenn Foods, Inc./Owner, Atkins Engineering Associates, Inc./Agent. David Gilfus, 103 North Atkinson Avenue, spoke in opposition to the request. He stated no definite plan for the parking, office space, or fencing had been submitted for review and that the property had not been maintained since Fenn Foods had purchased it. He stated traffic along Atkinson Avenue is already bad and that Commercial zoning would make it worse. Mr. Gilfus presented pictures of the property to the Commission and stated the property was in disrepair. He stated noise from the property was a disturbance in the neighborhood and that the existing fence does nothing to buffer the noise from office activities. He stated available Commercial properties exist. Mr. Gross asked Mr. Gilfus to explain what noise was bothering the neighbors. Mr. Gilfus stated noise from the office workers on breaks and entering and exiting the building and their cars can be heard a few lots over. He stated existing traffic on Atkinson Avenue backs up to 1st Street making it difficult for property owners to enter or exit their lots and that additional Commercial activity would make it worse. Mr. Gross asked if the noise would be different if the zoning were not changed. Mr. Gilfus stated the current noise comes from 107 North Atkinson Avenue, one lot over, and that if Commercial activity were allowed at 105 North Atkinson Avenue it would be much worse. Mr. Gilfus stated a block fence might help to buffer the noise. Mr. Gross stated a 6' screen fence would be required and Mr. Vickers stated it is to buffer Commercial from Residential. Mr. Armstrong asked if a type of material is specified and Mr. Vickers stated it is to be a screen fence. Mr. Gilfus stated a screen fence would affect visibility but not noise. Mr. Armstrong asked when the noise is a problem. Mr. Gilfus stated the noise is the worst in the morning, at lunch, and when the workers leave in the evening. Mr. Gross stated he had visited the site and listened to the noise. He stated he found it difficult to determine which noise came from the Commercial lot and which came from traffic on Atkinson Avenue. Mr. Gilfus stated the noise he hears in his backyard comes from the Commercial lot. Mr. Gross stated he believed the owner had plans to address the concerns but that nothing was in writing. Mike Wiley, 102 North Atkinson Avenue, spoke in opposition to the request. He stated traffic is already a problem in the area. He asked if a zone change would allow other uses besides an office. He stated that parking in the lot for an hour is different from living there and that he is concerned about other possible uses. Mr. Gwartney asked if Mr. Wiley heard noise from the existing office and Mr. Wiley stated he couldn't say he did. Mr. Wiley stated his main concern was traffic and other uses. Chair Brown asked for Staff's comments. Mr. Gwartney asked if a type of fence could be stipulated. Mr. Jaramillo stated it could not and that additional stipulations could not be made. He stated any possible use with their accompanying requirements would be allowed. He stated paving, landscaping, and fencing requirements would go along with the zone change. He stated the fencing is to protect neighboring property owners. He stated the Comprehensive Master Plan's Land Use Plan recommends the area to be Commercial and that it abuts Commercial and 2 R-3 zoning. He stated all access would be from Atkinson Avenue. Mr. Gross asked if a building permit would be required and Mr. Jaramillo stated he would have to check with Charlie Purcell, Building Inspector. Mr. Najar stated a plan review would be held before a permit would be issued and that it may be possible to request that trees or shrubs be placed near the screen fence to buffer sound. He stated the first step would be the zone change and that step two would be the building permit. Mr. Gross stated no permits are needed to pave a lot or build a fence. Mr. Vickers stated the applicant's intent is to adjoin the lots which would come before the Commission for review. He stated a utility easement would need to be moved if the building were to be expanded. He stated the lots must be combined to allow the building in the application to be used as an accessory structure. Mr. Brown stated the building could have a Commercial use if the zone change is approved without doing any additions. Mr. Vickers stated it would have to come into compliance with zoning and building codes. Mr. Gross stated the property needed improvement and this could be a good resolution. Mr. Gilfus stated the property should not be rezoned and that he was not sure what codes would need to be met to bring the property into compliance. He stated no plans have been submitted and that other issues could arise in the future. He stated other properties in town would have to be allowed to change or lawsuits could be filed. Mr. Jaramillo stated 28 uses are permitted in the C-2 Commercial District and that a use can't be set. He stated changes of use would not require additional hearings. Mrs. Childress asked about effects on traffic at 2nd Street and Atkinson Avenue. Mr. Najar stated the traffic problem exist regardless with Atkinson Avenue being a truck route and having schools on the street. He stated the additional traffic would not be a large factor. Mr. Armstrong asked if anyone was present to speak for the case. Mr. Gwartney asked how far the Master Plan recommends Commercial zoning. Mr. Jaramillo stated this would be the last lot in the Commercial recommendation and that the Master Plan is due for renewal. Chair Brown asked if a vote of five out of seven would be required and Mr. Jaramillo stated that was correct. MOTION Mr. Gwartney made the motion to approve Case 12-005 as presented based on Land Use and Zoning Considerations and Findings of Facts. Mr. Gross made the second. There was no further discussion. The motion was denied by a vote of two in favor and three against. Mrs. Childress moved to waive the reading of the ‘Land Use and Zoning Considerations’ and ‘Finding of Facts’ for the following case. Mr. Armstrong made the second. The motion was approved by a vote of six in favor and zero against. CASE NO. 11-019: A Special Use Permit for a Church in an R-1 Residential District, Tract D of Sulimar Subdivision 2 Summary Plat 2; located on the North side of the 600 Block of West Mescalero Road; First Baptist Church of Roswell/Owner, Smith Engineering/Agent. Chair Brown stated the case had been postponed several times due to disagreements between the applicant and surrounding property owners. Mr. Jaramillo stated it had and that the Commission had been given a handout regarding change to Findings of Facts. He stated the handout contained Findings of Facts #11 and #12 and asked that #4, #5, and #6 be stricken from the record. He stated Finding of Fact #10 is incorrect and that two written letters of protest had been received regarding the street but not the church itself. One letter requested the street to be constructed and the other requested a cul de sac. Scott Hicks of Smith Engineering spoke in favor of the request. He stated the case had been postponed while an agreement was reached and showed a diagram of the revised proposal. He stated Missouri Avenue would be built from Mescalero Road to Vista Parkway and that the owners had come to an agreement on sharing the cost of construction. He stated the church would grant 30' of right-of-way to allow the street to realign later on. Mr. Hicks stated setbacks were also agreed upon. Mr. Gwartney asked who would be responsible for construction of the Missouri Avenue north of Vista Parkway. Mr. Hicks stated any future development would 3 come before review and that it would be negotiated at a later date. Mr. Najar stated all utilities are being accessed from Mescalero Road and that any future utility access from Missouri Avenue would come before the Commission. Mr. Gwartney asked if access to the alley was determined. Mr. Hicks stated that would be the concern of another owner and that no alley currently exists. Mr. Najar stated Staff had requested an Assurance Agreement with the applicant to have on file. Mr. Vickers stated the Assurance Agreement stated a Certificate of Occupancy could not be issued if the road were not built. Mr. Jaramillo stated the Assurance Agreement would be Finding of Fact #13. Mr. Cortez asked if a replat would be filed with the right-of-way shown and Mr. Hicks stated it would. Chair Brown asked if the concerns in the protest letters were addressed and Mr. Jaramillo stated they were. Simon Polaco, 2900 North Lea Avenue, stated he appreciated Staff's efforts as well as all those involved and was glad to come to an agreement. He stated he supported the request. Mr. Cortez asked if Finding of Fact #7 regarding on-street parking along Mescalero Road was still an issue. Mr. Jaramillo stated the requirements in Zoning Ordinance No. 10-02 should address issues so that adequate on-site parking is available. MOTION Mr. Armstrong made a motion to approve Case 11-019 based on Findings of Facts and Land Use and Zoning Considerations with the deletion of #4, #5, and #6, the addition of #11, #12, and #13, and a correction to #10. Mrs. Childress made the second. There was no further discussion. The motion passed by a vote of six to zero. INCREASE TO APPLICATION FEES Mr. Jaramillo stated the page on the fee increases given to the Commission included the original wording with changes shown in red. He stated the legal ad for the month of May had cost approximately $100.00 or $35.00 per case and that copier fees and maintenance cost approximately $600.00 every three months or $66.00 per case. He stated certified mail costs $5.75 per letter or $150.00 per case and that letters must be mailed to all property owners within 100' of a request. He stated the approximate cost of materials, advertisements, and mailings per case is $201.00. He stated he had included a comparison with similar cities in the state. He stated Clovis and Las Vegas were planning increases while Farmington was waiting to see what Roswell would decide. Mr. Jaramillo stated a zone change would increase from $150.00 to $200.00 for the first acre and the amount for each additional acre would be reduced from $30.00 to $15.00. He stated annexations would no longer be charged as zone changes. He stated the form should include a charge of $15.00 for each additional acre for A. and B. with an additional $10.00 for C. and D. He stated plats are handled differently by different cities. Mr. Jaramillo stated the preliminary plat is the most intensive with the greatest number of details to be resolved and that final plats should be ready to be approved. He stated the costs of preliminary plats had increased accordingly. He stated street changes would be $200.00 per application and $100.00 per intersection. He stated vacation of rights-of-way and easements would $200.00. He stated Special Use Permits would be increased from $150.00 to $400.00 and asked for the Commission's input. He stated Conditional Use Permits would increase from $50.00 to $200.00 and a fee of $100.00 would be implemented for deferments or postponements initiated by the applicant. He stated an appeal fee had not been included. He stated a fee for a zoning letter had been approved by former City Manager John Capps for the amount of $20.00 and was included on the fee schedule. He stated zoning letters are often needed for car dealerships, alcohol license applicants, and others needing written confirmation of zoning. Chair Brown asked if a recommendation for approval by City Council would be needed. Mr. Jaramillo stated it would be needed along with any recommended changes. Mr. Armstrong stated the fees charged by different cities did not align with population. He stated he would recommend $300.00 for a Special Use Permit as a more reasonable amount and that an appeal 4 fee should be considered. Mr. Jaramillo stated one could be included but a set cost must be specified and asked the Commission for suggestions. He stated the concern had been the issue of Staff appealing a decision and deciding if the fee would still apply. Mr. Gwartney asked if the City could pay itself the fee. Mr. Vickers stated an addendum could state that the City is not required to pay the appeal fee. Mr. Armstrong asked what fee would be recommended and Mr. Jaramillo stated $100.00. Chair Brown asked if that would cover all costs and Mr. Jaramillo stated it would. Mr. Cortez stated the minimum filing fee for a summary plat in the County is $200.00 while the City begins at $10.00 plus $2.00 per lot and asked if that was an adequate amount. Mr. Jaramillo stated the costs had been kept low to encourage citizens to formally file summary plats. He stated no mailings are required, only Staff time. Mr. Vickers stated no fees included Staff time. Mr. Gross stated he felt the Special Use fee is more than fair and that the Special Use cases he had known of had been extensive with a great deal of research and paperwork. He stated it's a small percentage of the total development cost and that many cases are heard multiple times. Mr. Armstrong asked if Mr. Gross was comfortable with the $400.00 fee. Mr. Gross stated he was and that an increase would not be a deal breaker for developers. Mr. Gwartney stated he preferred a $300.00 fee. Mr. Gross asked if the cost could be a percentage of the total costs and Mr. Jaramillo stated it would be too difficult to determine total costs of projects. Mr. Jaramillo stated Special Uses and Variances will be charged differently. He stated the annexation fee should read as $300.00 for the first 5 acres plus $15.00 for each additional acre. Mr. Armstrong stated he would like to see an appeal fee. Mr. Gross and Mr. Gwartney agreed to the appeal fee. Mr. Armstrong asked if $100.00 would cover the costs. Mr. Jaramillo stated it would and that the appellant mails out letters using addresses provided by Staff. He stated costs are limited to copies which are distributed to Council. MOTION Mr. Cortez made a motion to recommend approval for application fee increase as corrected, an appeal fee at $100.00 and Special Use at $400.00 by City Council of the Increase to Appeal Fees. Mr. Gwartney made the second. There was no further discussion. The motion passed by a vote of six to zero. Other Business: The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m. _________________________________ ______________________________ Ralph Brown- Chair Shirley Childress- Vice Chair 5