Planning & Zoning Commission

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes to the June 26, 2012 MEETING Members Present: Mr. Ralph Brown-------------------------------------------------------------Chair Mr. Toby Gross-----------------------------------------------------------Member Mrs. Shirley Childress---------------------------------------------------Member Mr. Riley Armstrong-----------------------------------------------------Member Mr. Chris Cortez----------------------------------------------------------Member Mr. Eddie Carrillo---------------------------------------------------------Member Members Absent: Mr. Bruce Gwartney-----------------------------------------------------Member Council Present: None Staff Present: Mr. Louis Najar-----------------------------------------------------City Engineer Mrs. Barbara Patterson-------------------------------------------City Attorney Mr. Michael Vickers------------------------------------------------City Planner Mr. Louis Jaramillo--------------------------------------Zoning Administrator Ms. Amber Copeland--------------------------------------Zoning Technician CALL TO ORDER Chair Brown called the meeting to order and asked those who wished to speak to sign in. MINUTES Chair Brown called for approval of the minutes of the May 29, 2012 minutes. Mr. Armstrong moved to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Gross made the second and all voted in favor. SWEARING IN Chair Brown swore in the audience and Staff. INFORMATION ITEMS There were no information items. 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. 12-009: A Vacation of a Utility Easement, Tract 1 of the Allsups Summary Plat; being the northwest corner of Garden Avenue and College Boulevard; Allsups Convenience Stores, Inc./Owner, DSA Architects, LLC./Agent Mr. Vickers stated the applicant was not present and that Staff would explain the case. He stated the request would vacate the 10' sewer easement which is no longer in use. He stated the applicant planned to move the easement to another location on the property. Chair Brown asked if Staff is in favor of the request and Mr. Vickers stated Staff supports it. He stated the easement had been overlooked in the plat done for the lot. Chair Brown asked if the location is at College Boulevard and Garden Avenue. Mr. Najar stated the applicant would be tying into the sewer line on the west side of the property as opposed to the line being vacated. Mr. Jaramillo stated the motion would be a recommendation to City Council. MOTION Mr. Cortez made a motion to approve Case 12-009 based on Findings of Facts and Land Use and Zoning Considerations. Mr. Armstrong made the second. There was no further discussion. The motion passed by a vote of six to zero. 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 six in favor and zero against. CASE 12-010: A Vacation of a Public Right-of-Way- A 20' Alley in the ETZ, Lots 1-12, Block 8 of New Lykins Subdivision, located on the west side of the 6000 block of South Main Street, Allsups Convenience Stores, Inc./Owner, DSA Architects. LLC./Agent. William C. Moss, 6105 South Kincaid, spoke in opposition to the request. He stated the Commission had been provided with a petition signed by five out of six of the adjoining landowners stating their opposition to the request. He stated a large amount of traffic with two school bus routes. He stated no drainage exists in the area and that a commercial truck service center would be a mistake. He stated his property line to the proposed development's line is 48' and that he believes 60' is required by the City for truck traffic. Mr. Jaramillo stated the petition and protest letters represented more than 20% of property owners within 100' and that they were received on June 20th and 21st. Mr. Cortez asked if the request was only for the vacation of right-of-way and not for a zone change. Mr. Vickers stated that was correct and that if the request were approved the lots would be replatted into one large lot and the alley would be removed. He stated the property is located in the Extra Territorial Zone (ETZ) which is regulated by the ETZ Commission, which is comprised of three City members, three County members, and an at-large member, and the ETZ Authority, which consists of three County Commissioners and three City Councilors. He stated the request was being heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission because the City has platting jurisdiction in the ETZ and that the request would then be heard by Council. Mr. Vickers stated the City was not responsible for the zone change request. He stated the zone change would be heard by the ETZ Commission and County Commission. He stated Staff had spoken with the applicants and that title commitments had been obtained from the owners listed on the application which could be provided upon request. He stated the utility companies had provided confirmation via email that they do not object to the request and that printouts of the emails had been provided to the Commission. Mr. Vickers stated an additional 5' minimum of right-of-way could be requested along Offut Street, Ryan Street, and Kincaid Drive to come closer to meeting the City's 60' requirement for streets. He stated any additional requirements listed by City Engineer Louis Najar would be discussed before sending the request to Council. Mr. Armstrong asked Mr. Moss if he understood that only the vacation of right-of-way was being considered and not the zone change. He state the zone change would be the second step in the process. Mr. Moss stated his understanding was the zone change would change the six lots along the west side to County jurisdiction. Mr. Armstrong asked Staff how the drainage issues would be resolved. Mr. Vickers stated Angela Grapsas of DSA Architecture, agents for Allsups Convenience Stores, acknowledged that drainage is a concern. He stated the City could not require a drainage plan since the lots are outside of the City limits but could request one be provided. He stated he estimated the drainage might flow to Main Street or could go to Kincaid Drive which already has drainage issues. He stated the engineers for the applicant were working on drainage plans. Mr. Armstrong asked Mr. Moss where his property is located and Mr. Moss stated it is directly south of the proposed replat. Mr. Moss stated he had maintained a GB98 contractor's license since the early 1970s and had worked in construction for many years. He stated the first phase of construction is to tear down the existing structures and build a pad 12'-18" deep, making it 8"-10" higher than the ground. He stated drainage will have no place to go but the north, south, and west. He stated four entrances to the lot were shown with two on Main Street and two on Ryan Street and that Ryan Street is not wide enough for semis to make turns. Mr. Armstrong asked if Ryan Street would be the location of the additional right-of-way. Mr. Vickers stated it is and that the City retains jurisdiction on lot lines and rights-of-way. He stated turning radiuses would be examined to ensure semis could use the entrances. Mr. Najar stated the intersection of Ryan Street and Main Street would need to be widened and asphalt would need to replace the chip seal currently there. Mr. Jaramillo stated Staff would be looking at the drainage issues affecting Hobson Road, which is within the City. Mr. Moss stated the intersection of Hobson Road and Kincaid Drive is already filled with 2 potholes and that a manhole cover rises above the street level. He stated neither City nor County would take responsibility for the street. He stated noise and traffic from a 24-hour a day truck center would be extensive and unwelcome in the residential neighborhood. Mr. Cortez stated he understood Mr. Moss' concerns and that he agreed Mr. Moss should make those concerns known to the ETZ Commission and Authority because they would be responsible for the zone change. Mr. Cortez asked Staff if City engineers would be looking at the intersections that abut City property and Mr. Najar stated they would. Mr. Moss asked why Allsups would be getting City water and sewer services and the residents of the neighborhood would not. Mrs. Patterson stated those outside the City limits can obtain sewer and water services for a higher fee than paid by City residents. Mr. Vickers stated property owners are responsible for the cost of extending the utilities to their properties. Mr. Gross stated the petition said it represented property owners within 1,000' and asked Staff if those were included in the 20% of landowners within 100'. Mr. Jaramillo stated it was possibly a typo that should have read 100' and he discussed the location of the signers of the petition. Mr. Gross asked if that comprised 20% and Mr. Jaramillo stated it did. MOTION Mr. Cortez made a motion to postpone Case 12-010 until zoning issues had been resolved. Mr. Armstrong made the second. Mrs. Patterson stated only four affirmative votes would be needed as it was a procedural motion. Mr. Brown asked if it was feasible to postpone the case until zoning issues were resolved. Mrs. Patterson stated the City Planning and Zoning Commission could not instruct the ETZ Commission or Authority on a case and that if the ETZ bodies decided the matter could not be heard then an issue could be present in the future. Mr. Vickers stated that if the zoning issue were not resolved the matter could revert back to what it is now. Chair Brown stated drainage is an issue in the area during rain and should be resolved. The motion passed by a vote of six to zero. 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 six in favor and zero against. CASE 12-011: A Zone Change From R-4 Residential District to A Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.)- Commercial, Tract A of La Bella Vita Subdivision Unit 1, being the northwest corner of Union Avenue and 19th Street, Eagle Creek Villas, LLC./Owner, Wagener Engineering/Agent. Todd Wagener, agent, spoke in favor of the request and stated planning had been in progress for the land for four to five years. He stated the tract is zoned R-4 District and is suitable for professional offices. He stated Dr. Maupin planned to build a dental office on the tract after his previous property at 614 North Union Avenue had issues making construction difficult. Mr. Wagener stated Dr. Maupin had spoken with Rick Rhodes, an owner of Eagle Creek Villas, LLC., who decided it would be good development for that area. Mr. Wagener stated most commercial development is along Main Street and 2nd Street and that other areas are needed for light commercial uses. He stated access to the tract would be from Union Avenue and 19th Street with individual lots not having direct access but sharing a common drive. He stated Lot 1 would be Dr. Maupin's dental office and that it would be built if the request were approved. He stated the rest of the development plan was in the conceptual stage and that the plan meets all Ordinance requirements. He stated the plan would bring in less traffic than an apartment complex which would also be allowed under the R-4 designation. Mr. Gross asked which lots were included in the 100' notification area. Mr. Wagener explained the location of the lots and that the tract would eventually abut a subdivision. Mr. Armstrong asked if Tract B is zoned the same and Mr. Wagener stated that all of La Bella Vita Subdivision is R-4 District. Mr. Gross asked Mr. Najar if the Engineering Department approved of building the private drive only as far as the first completed project for the time being. Mr. Najar stated he and Mr. Wagener had agreed that should anyone wish to build closer to 19th Street the private drive would go all the way through. He stated all traffic for the dental office would enter from Union Avenue and that any development past that would necessitate completing the drive. Mr. Cortez asked if a turning lane would be added for cars entering the tract from Union Avenue. Mr. Wagener stated the lots do not directly access Union Avenue or 19th Street. Mr. Cortez asked 3 if the turn from Union Avenue onto the tract would present any safety issues. Mr. Wagener stated the entrances would be approximately 250' from the intersection so that no issues should arise. Mr. Gross stated he lives in the neighboring subdivision and has noticed an increase in traffic with the continued development. He stated he is in favor of developing the empty lots in the area but is also concerned with the existing streets being able to handle the increased flow of traffic. Mr. Armstrong asked Staff if plans existed to improve Union Avenue from 19th Street to Country Club Road. Mr. Najar stated plans for those improvements had been scrapped because it would necessary to address drainage issues at Main Street and Berrendo Avenue and work from there. Mr. Najar stated language had been included in the case to address traffic issues including requiring deceleration and acceleration lanes and to address drainage. He stated drainage issues needed to be addressed from Union Avenue and 19th Street to Garden Avenue to College Boulevard. Mr. Armstrong asked if water coming from Tract A would be held in a retention pond. Mr. Najar stated the water would not be stopped but slowed down by landscaping or some other means before it reaches the intersection. Mr. Gross asked if the private drive would be a cul de sac or if it would be necessary to go onto the dental office's lot to turn around. Mr. Wagener stated the private drive would only serve the dental office and would turn into the parking lot but that the street would be continued with additional development. He stated no more than three lots could be developed without the road being continued. Mr. Gross stated it seemed to have been worked out well. Mr. Brown stated traffic and water are issues at that intersection. He stated flooding takes place after storms and that cars can't see the speed limit sign along Union Avenue. He stated the possibility of an accident would be increased without the proper precautions being taken. Mr. Najar stated language had been included to try to avoid traffic issues and that a traffic impact study would be required. He stated the dental office would have a set amount of traffic. MOTION Mr. Gross made a motion to approve Case 12-011 based on Findings of Facts and Land Use and Zoning. Mrs. Childress made the second. Mrs. Patterson stated she was concerned that some of the Findings of Facts could not be enforced. She stated #7 referenced "substantial change" to the development plan and that "substantial" had very little meaning legally. She stated the word "substantial" should be deleted. She stated #12 would allow the applicant to use any use permitted in a C-1 District. She recommended uses not already set come before the Commission before being approved. She stated #12 should read "All uses for this Commercial P.U.D. shall be approved by Staff or by the Planning and Zoning Commission." She recommended deletion of #16 because the applicant would have to come back for approval in one form or another as indicated by #13, #14, #15, and #17. Mr. Armstrong stated he would have concerns if other property owners in the area who would be affected but that Mr. Rhodes is the owner of all property abutting Tract A. He stated he didn't believe it would benefit Mr. Rhodes to develop the property differently than written in the case. Mrs. Patterson stated that as written the Findings of Facts would allow the applicant to change the uses to any permitted in the C-1 District. She listed Permitted Uses in C-1 Districts. Mr. Gross stated he would like the motion to state the applicant must come back to the Commission with changes to the development plan. Mr. Jaramillo stated #1 states the law was followed and that #2 states the Comprehensive Master Plan recommends the area as low-density residential. He stated #2 might not be included if approval is recommended. He stated a Final Plat would be combined with the Zone Change and that the Final Plat must be approved by Council. Mr. Wagener stated he was unsure what development would take place on the other lots but that nothing permitted in C-1 wouldn't fit in the neighborhood. He stated liquor sales would not be possible because of the nearby church. He stated offices are likely and that they would meet all requirements. He stated a Beehive group home could be possible. He stated the intent was to have Staff review all potential development was stated in #7. He stated changes to building shapes and locations are minor and shouldn't come before Commission. He stated some leniency would help in approaching clients to be able to tell them what they can do in the space. Mr. Vickers stated the P.U.D. section of the Ordinance states that any changes to the development plan require separate approval. He stated it is designed to accommodate alternatives to traditional zoning. He stated the first phase had been 4 outlined for the development. Mr. Armstrong asked if the applicant knows he must come back to get approval to change the development plan. Mr. Vickers stated he did but would prefer approval to have any use permitted in the C-1 District. He stated development and design standards would be taken into account. He stated past modifications P.U.D.s have required approval by Commission. Mr. Cortez asked if #7 is redundant given the requirements of a P.U.D. Mrs. Patterson stated she felt the development plan would allow for neighborhood commercial uses as listed in the C-1 District section of the Ordinance. Mr. Armstrong asked if that negated #12. Mrs. Patterson stated that approving the Findings of Facts including #12 would make it difficult to argue that all permitted uses in the C-1 District had not been allowed. Mrs. Patterson stated some permitted uses in the C-1 District increase traffic such as banks and childcare centers. Mr. Brown stated he appreciated the comments made by Mrs. Patterson and Mr. Jaramillo. He stated he did not wish to leave the situation open-ended and he felt it would be beneficial to have the applicant come back before the Commission with future changes to the development. Mr. Gross asked how to proceed with the motion. Mrs. Patterson stated the pending motion would be to approve the case as presented. She stated a motion to modify the motion would be required and then a vote on that motion. Rick Rhodes, owner, stated he has invested approximately $20,000,000.00 in the La Bella Vita Subdivision in construction and land. He stated he is very particular about what will be allowed in the subdivision. He stated he had no wish to jeopardize his investment and that everything would be built to the highest standards. He stated he wished to leave a legacy that would benefit the community and that he was aware that traffic problems needed to be addressed. Mr. Rhodes stated he felt that taking up to eight weeks to bring any new development to the Commission was tying the hands of the developers and potential builders. He stated the development would improve the land and would help the City grow. Mr. Cortez stated he felt Staff would be capable of making judgment calls regarding new development and that #20 addressed his concerns. He stated he felt items #2 and #7 should be removed. Mr. Brown stated he was not concerned with current plans but with future possibilities and was reluctant to make blanket changes. He stated similar cases had come before the Commission and lack of definite plans had held them back. He stated he felt Mr. Rhodes was doing a nice job in the area. Mrs. Patterson stated changes to #12 stating the applicant shall come before the Commission with any changes conflicted with #20 which states that Staff may determine if the applicant must come before the Commission. Mr. Gross stated he originally wanted the matter to come back to the Commission but felt that Staff could handle the matter. He stated he felt #20 should remain as written. Mr. Jaramillo stated #2 should be removed, the word "substantial" should be removed from #7 and Staff shall have discretion to approve changes, #16 should be removed, and #12 should be modified to read, "All permitted uses for this P.U.D. shall be approved by Staff or by the Commission." Mr. Gross made a motion to amend the original motion. Mr. Carrillo made the second. Mr. Wagener asked for a rereading of the changes to the motion. He asked if the plat would be included in the amended motion. Mr. Jaramillo stated they came together. Mr. Armstrong asked if Staff and the applicant had discussed the necessary changes before the meeting. Mr. Wagener stated he believed they had. Mr. Cortez stated the Commission could recommend Council approve the plat. Mr. Brown asked if Staff and the applicant were comfortable with the change. Mrs. Patterson stated the zone change should be voted on separately from the plat. There was no further discussion. All voted in favor of the motion to amend the original motion. Mr. Gross made a motion to approve Case 12-011 based on Findings of Facts as amended. Mrs. Childress made the second. All voted in favor. Mr. Cortez made a motion to recommend City Council approve the Final Plat attached to Case 12-011 as presented. Mr. Carrillo made the second. All voted in favor. Other Business: 5  Mr. Jaramillo stated the Planning and Zoning Committee had requested a review of the Ordinance to begin by August or September. He stated the Ordinance had been approved in 2010. Mr. Vickers stated a request had been made to consider beauty/barber shops as professional offices. Mr. Jaramillo stated changes would be considered in R-4 Districts and to accessory uses and carports. The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. _________________________________ ______________________________ Ralph Brown- Chair Shirley Childress- Vice Chair 6