Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2005-10-20 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS OCTOBER 20, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Davis at 7:02 p.m. PRESENT CITY STAFF Page 1 of 17 10/20/05 P&Z Minutes 2. ROLL CALL Chairman Vice Chair Secretary Ex Officio Assistant City Manager City Attorney Dir. of Planning & Development Chief Planner Asst. Dir. of Public Works Planning Assistant Recording Secretary Richard Davis Bill Schopper Ken Sapp Scott Wood Don Bowen Randy Shiflet Brenda Cole Mike Benton Bo Bass George Staples John Pitstick Dave Green Greg Van Nieuwenhuize Carolyn Huggins Holly Blake 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 1 AND SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 MEETINGS. APPROVED APPROVED Ken Sapp asked for a correction on page 5 of the September 1, 2005 minutes. The word "not" needs to be added in the first sentence between "is" and "common". Brenda Cole, seconded by Bill Schopper, motioned to approve the minutes from the September 1 and September 15, 2005 meeting with corrections to the September 1, 2005 minutes as noted by Ken Sapp. The motion was approved unanimously (7-0). 5. TR 2005-02 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE PERMITTING THE DRILLING AND PRODUCTION OF GAS WELLS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. APPROVED John Pitstick, Director of Planning & Development, presented TR 2005-02, an ordinance to allow gas drilling within the city limits. He will present a table of permitted uses that will permit drilling in all zoning districts. The next item on the agenda, TR 2005-03 will address the requirements for obtaining a permit for gas drilling within the City of North Richland Hills. Chairman Davis repeated, for clarification, that this ordinance, TR 2005-02, if passed by the City Council, will allow gas drilling and will change the Table of Permitted Uses by adding a verbiage that allows gas drilling in all zoning districts. Chairman Davis opened the public hearing. Suzette Christopher, 4800 Holiday Lane, came forward. Ms. Christopher praised the Commission and Staff for their work on this issue. Ms. Christopher is for the ordinance. Chairman Davis asked if there was anyone else that wished to speak. Being none, Chairman Davis closed the public hearing. Randy Shiflet, seconded by Bill Schopper, motioned to recommend approval of TR 2005..Q2. The motion carried unanimously (7..Q). Page 2 of 17 10/20/05 P&Z Minutes 6. TR 2005..Q3 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE DRILLING AND PRODUCTION OF GAS WELLS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS APPROVED John Pitstick presented TR 2005-03, an ordinance creating a new section of Chapter 104 within the City Ordinances. Staff is recommending well setbacks of 600-ft. from all commercial and residential structures, including playground, competition fields, picnic areas, swimming pools, concession stands, and pavilions within a public park. Drilling is allowed within a public park, but the wells would have to be at least 600-ft. away from any of those areas within a public park. Tank batteries, which are associated with gas drilling, will be required to be 300-ft. minimum from any commercial or residential structure. Staff is creating a Gas Board of Appeals, and this Board can reduce the setback to 300-ft. with notification of surrounding property owners within 600-ft. A public meeting would be held with the applicant presenting the case to the Board of Appeals. The Gas Board of Appeals can also reduce the setbacks to 150-ft. but an application would not be accepted unless Staff received written consent from all the surrounding property owners within 300-ft. . Drilling must commence within 90 days of the issuance of a gas well permit. An extension of an additional 90 days can be granted, if necessary. The filing fee for each new well is $5,000. On the permit, Staff will require contact information, a detailed site plan within 1,OOO-ft. of the well, an emergency response plan, a hazardous material plan, insurance documents, and a right-of-way maintenance agreement. The Texas Railroad Commission regulates gas and oil drilling in the state. That would also have to be presented to Staff along with a stormwater management plan, seismic survey and a tree preservation plan. A comprehensive site plan document will have to be presented with all applications and filing fees. A permit would be required for all structures and buildings within the operational site. The applications would be made to the Planning & Development Department. The review and approval would be by the Development Review Committee. DRC is made up of most of the departments within the City including Police, Fire, Parks & Recreation, Public Works, Planning & Development, Neighborhood Services and Economic Development. All departments would have to sign off on each submittal for approval. A third party inspector will be hired to manage these permits. That will allow an expert out in the field from the City. This inspector would report to the Director of Public Works. Page 3 of 17 10/20/05 P&Z Minutes A permit would be required for an amended gas well. If there is an existing hole in the ground and the applicant would like to make minor revisions to the operational site it would be a much quicker review. The City has the right to suspend or revoke any gas well permit. Written notice would be given to the operator. There is a 45 day cure period unless imminent danger to persons or property is an issue. The City also has the right to contact the Texas Railroad Commission. The operator has the right to appeal within ten days. That appeal would go before the Gas Board of Appeals. The operator can also resubmit any denied permit for the same area. Some specific requirements for bonds, indemnity, letter of credit and insurance are as follows: 1) bond or letter of credit for $50,000.00 to $200,000.00 per well 2) general liability of $1,000,000.00 with umbrella liability of $5,000,000.00 3) environmental pollution coverage of $1,000,000.00 to $10,000,000.00 per well 4) out of control well insurance of $5,000,000.00 to $10,000,000.00 and 5) workers compensation for $500,000.00 in automobile liability. The onsite technical regulations state that all abandoned wells would require being cut and removed 10-ft. below the surface. The blowout prevention equipment is provided and there is a chemical and material storage provided. Dust, vibration, and odor are calculated. There is an emergency response plan provided. Appearance of lighting, muffling and exhaust is considered. There is a requirement for a private road that has to be an all weathered surface at least 20-ft~ wide. and have 14-ft. overhead clearances. There has to be signs and proper names on the site witha24 hour contact number. There is another requirement that the tanks cah'only·be 12-fLin height. The work hours are 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. during the operation, not during the drilling. During the drilling there is a requirement for a noise restriction level of 78 dbs at 300-ft. During fracturing there is a requirement of no more than 85 dbs at 300-ft. and all other operations would be 65 dbs. The gas inspector can require additional sound muffling devises if the sound levels are exceeded. These noise restriction levels are consistent with all the cities that Staff has looked at. Screening walls, sound walls and landscaping will be required at the well. All of these factors will block and absorb a portion of the noise levels. During initial drilling the City will require a temporary chain link fence with screening fabric at least 6-ft. tall surrounding the entire site. It will have to have a secure gate with a knox box and signage. During production the City will require an 8-ft. masonry wall surrounding the well and all the associated equipment. There is also evergreen, scrubs, trees, or berms. Clean up and maintenance regulations require that the well will have to be repaired within 60 days after plugged or abandoned. The Gas Board of Appeals will hear all appeals on distance requirements, hours of operation, landscaping and screening. The applicant would have to show special circumstances to reverse those standards. This would require a majority vote to allow Page 4 of 17 10/20/05 P&Z Minutes any deviations from these standards. There is also another appeal than can be made if a ruling from Staff or the gas inspector or revocation of permit is made. If there is a ruling from DRC or the City, the applicant can appeal that ruling to the Gas Board of Appeals and it requires a super majority vote to reverse an error of fact or misinterpretation. The only basis for a reversal shall be an error in applying regulations; this has nothing to do with hardships. It will be a strict interpretation of the ordinance for the Gas Board of Appeals. There will be a penalty section. Violation fees will range from $500.00 to $2,000.00 per violation per day. Chairman Davis opened the public hearing. Suzette Christopher, 4800 Holiday Lane, came forward. Ms. Christopher has concerns about possible leaks within the valve. Will an inspector be at the well daily? Mr. Pitstick answered that there will be a requirement for a daily and weekly log for every incident that happens at the well. The gas inspector would review any incident that would occur on a daily basis. The gas inspector can walk in at any time unannounced. Ms. Christopher asked how the City will know if a valve leaks. There is no oder. Michael Burnaman, The Harding Company, came forward. MrcBurnamari explained that The Harding Company is an oil and gas operator~-Duringthe function of the gas \ well and during production, there is equipment at the ,well site that monitors the pressures in the lines. If a pressure changes there'¡s a: way that a signal goes out to a monitoring devise. There is also an automatic shutoffcapabilityon'the weIL,- This is a standard procedure. George Staples, City Attorney, came forward. Please understand that the Railroad Commission regulates the safety of these wells. This ordinance does not attempt to regulate post production. That is beyond the City's capabilities. There are Railroad Commission requirements concerning the production standards. There are requirements for regular monitoring which is done by inspection of the logs on a regular basis. Ms. Christopher asked if the monitoring equipment is standard. Mr. Burnaman answered yes. There is equipment that monitors this. The shut off devises are at the well head and that is the first line of defense. Then there are people who work for the operation company that go by the wells on a daily basis. There are several ways that the integrity of the well is understood. Ms. Christopher asked if it was possible for a company to use less expensive or older equipment that may cause a problem. The concern is older equipment being used and the devises not working. Page 5 of 17 10/20/05 P&Z Minutes Chairman Davis stated that the City can address the issue of where the wells are placed, landscaping and screening. The ordinance requires insurance and reports from the Railroad Commission. The City cannot monitor the type and age of the equipment used. The City will have to trust the integrity of the person making a major financial investment in this well. The applicant is going to want the most efficient, safest and productive well they can have. Ms. Christopher stated that based on the information given, she is for the wells. Mr. Bowen added that the City will hire a gas inspector that is an expert in the industry. That inspector will be working for the City's benefit. Chairman Davis added that it could be a third party inspector but a City agent at the time of hire. Patti McCain, 8508 Steeple Ridge Drive, came forward. Ms. McCain stated that she didn't believe this was an activity that needs to be done within city limits. The structures are not aesthetically appealing. This belongs out of the city limits from residential or public areas. Chairman Davis asked if anyone else would like to speak in regards to TR 2005-03. Being none, Chairman Davis closed the public hearing. 'This ordinanceisa' positive thing. This can have great financial benefits for our City.- This is a wayto:get non property tax revenues to help the citizens as taxpayers. During the drilling process there is tall tower with a lot of noise for 30 to 45 days. The results are someone getting " to use their property along with royalties. ' '. Mr. Wood stated that at one time he agreed with Ms. McCain. The difference is that gas wells don't have the iron horse pumping up and down. It is flat when their finished and gone. The tower is temporary during the drilling process. Mr. Bowen asked Staff to explain city taxes for a well on private property. Mr. Pitstick explained that there are wells that could be worth millions of dollars. The value of the property when the tax assessor goes out could be in the millions of dollar. The value to the taxes could be substantial based on that. Mr. Schopper asked Staff how many wells could be built here. Mr. Pitstick answered that the City could be pushed to a little over a dozen. That number is an assumption based on the City's development and where the City is located. Chairman Davis called for a motion to include a change on page 34, "The members of the PlanninQ & ZoninQ Commission are hereby appointed as the Gas Board of Page 6 of 17 10/20/05 P&Z Minutes Appeals." And also on page 34 under (f) (1) c. instead of "officer or department head" it will state "the City Manager of the City of North Richland Hills." Ken Sapp requested an amendment to the motion. The distance to the property line is at the 150-ft. minimum and it should be increased to 300-ft. Every other minimum is two to four times what the state minimum is except for this one which is exactly the state minimum. It primarily protects the rights of vacant property owners. Chairman Davis stated that it also protects the rights of the existing land owner that he is still 600-ft. from any buildings. The property owner should be able to build within that state regulated distance. The property owner that has the vacant land, the well is 150- ft. off but he is still 600-ft. away from any improvement. The City could make it part of the platting procedure that all wells that are permitted need to be shown on all plats. Mr. Davis stated that Mr. Sapp's request can be included in the motion, but Mr. Davis recommends that the guidelines remain the same. Mr. Schopper stated the he understood that the well would not be closer than 150-ft. from the property line. The improvements of 300-ft. could be appealed. The well would be located the amount of the property line and the distance of the improvements off the property line. Mr. Pitstick, stated that Staff placed the distance within the ordinance to mimic the state·" requirements. Mr. Staples stated that Staff doesn't have any strong opinions oneway or anòther:. Staff was looking to protect people rather than property lines. Randy Shiflet, seconded by Bill Schopper, motioned to recommendTR200S-G3 with the changes that the Chairman addressed on page 34, the Planning .& Zoning Commission would be the Gas Board of Appeals and section (f) (1) c. the City Manager replace officer and department head. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 7. ZC 2005·18 PUBLIC HEARING~NDCONSIDERATIONOF A REQUEST FROM BRIAN JAMES FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL TO "R-2" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (LOCATED IN THE 8900 BLOCK OF RUMFIELD ROAD . .91 ACRES). APPROVED Dave Green, Chief Planner, presented ZC 2005-18. This property is involved with the next request on the agenda. The property is located in the 8900 block of Rumfield Road, south of Rumfield Road and east of Eden Road. The site is just under one acre Page 7 of 17 10/20/05 P&Z Minutes in size and is currently zoned Agricultural. The applicant is requesting that the property zoning be changed to "R-2" Single Family Residential for the purpose of building a single family residence. The zoning requires a minimum lot size of 9,000 sq. ft. and a minimum house size of 2,000 sq. ft. The Comprehensive Plan in the area depicts low density residential zoning. Staff recommends approval of ZC 2005-18. Chairman Davis opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak and the Chairman closed the public hearing. Brenda Cole, seconded by Scott Wood, motioned to approve ZC 2005-18. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 8. PP 2005-11 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM BRIAN JAMES TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT 1,BLOCK 1 JAMES ADDITION (LOCATED IN THE 8900 BLOCK OF RUMFIELD ROAD - .91 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Gree'n presented PP 2005-11. The purpose for the platting of this' prbpertyis: tpc allow the property owner to build a single family residence. This plat has been reviewed' by the Development Review Committee and a memo from the Public Works Department has been' prGvided.stating that the plat is ready for the Commission's consideration'.: Staff recommends approval of PP 2005-11. Ken Sapp;'seêohded by Don Bowen, motioned to approvePP 2005-11. 'The' motion was carried unanimously (7-0). ..'- 9. ZC 2005-12 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM SCOTT & RENEE HOFFMAN FORA ZONING CHANGE FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL TO "R-1-S" SPECIAL SINGLE FAMILY ,RESIDENTIAL (LOCATED IN THE 7800 BLOCK OF DOUGLAS LANE - 2.35 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Green presented ZC 2005-12. This request has three items on the agenda. The current request is for rezoning. The property is located in the 7800 block of Douglas Lane. Douglas Lane runs north and south and the property is located on the north side of Cross Timbers Park. The property is currently zoned Agricultural and the applicant is requesting "R-1-S" Special Single Family Residential. R-1-S is the only zoning that allows a residential structure and the keeping of livestock. A one-acre minimum is Page 8 of 17 10/20/05 P&Z Minutes required for R-1-S along with a minimum 2,300 sq. ft. house. This particular site is 2.35 acres in size. The Comprehensive Plan depicts a low density residential use for this area. Staff recommends approval of ZC 2005-12. Chairman Davis opened the public hearing. Mark Long, 1615 Precinct Line Road, came forward. Mr. Long is the engineer representing the applicant. Mr. Long stated that he is present if there are any questions. Chairman Davis asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. Being none, Chairman Davis closed the public hearing. Randy Shiflet, seconded by Brenda Cole, motioned to approve ZC 2005-12. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 10. PP 2005-12 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM SCOTT & RENEE HOFFMAN TO APPROVE THE,PREUMtNARYPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1 HOFFMAN ADDITION (LOCATED:'N THe '1100 BLOCK OF DOUGLAS LANE - 2.35 ACRES); APPROVED Chairman DavisexpJainedthat this is the preliminary plat for the previous property. Staff has provided a letter from Public Works stating that this plat meets all Subdivision regulations and Staff recommends approval. Chairman Davis called for a motion; Don Bowen, secondedbyBiIISchopper, motioned to approve PP 2005-11. The motion carried unanimously (7 -0). 11. F·P 2005-14 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM SCOTT & RENEE HOFFMAN TO APPROVE THE FINALiPLATOF LOT 1,BtOCK 1 HOFFMAN ADDITION (LOCATED IN THE 7800 BtOCK OF DOUGLAS LANE - 2.35 ACRES). APPROVED Chairman Davis stated this is the final plat for the previous case. Staff and Public Works provided a memo with a recommendation for approval. Chairman Davis called for a motion. Page 9 of 17 10/20/05 P&Z Minutes Bill Schopper, seconded by Don Bowen, motioned to approve FP 2005-14. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 12. ZC 2005..Q2 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM JB & JB DEVELOPMENT FLP/JOHNBARFIELD, G. P. FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL AND "C-1" COMMERCIAL TO "R-2" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (LOCA TED IN THE 9200 BLOCK OF MARTIN DRIVE - 8.515 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Green presented ZC 2005-02. This is the third time this case has come before the Commission. The applicant withdrew his request the last two times due to some concerns about the arrangement of the lot pattern and some of the adjacent zoning. The property west of Lots 1 thru 6, Block 3 is currently zoned Agricultural. The property east of Lots 1 thru 6, Block 3 is currently zoned "C-1" Commercial. The applicant is requesting "R-2" Single Family Residential for the purpose of building a 32-lot residential subdivision. Chairman Davis opened the public hearing. Mark Long, 1615 Precinct.Une Road, came forward. Mr. Long is the engineer representingthe'appUcant.~hetasttime this case came before the Commission, Mr. Barfield did not· own the corner piece. Since then Mr. Barfield has obtained that property and is adding it to the' proposal this evening. The gentlemen who own the property fronting Precinct Line Road are in the process of preparing site plans for those lots. The applicant is also working on drainage access. Mr. Schopper asked if the screening wall along the roadway and along Lot 12 and north of Lot 6 is going to be constructed by the applicant or by the commercial contractor. Mr. Long replied that it will belong to the commercial tract and the commercial tract will have to maintain it. Chairman Davis asked the applicant if he has had conversations with the commercial contractor regarding the screening wall construction and maintenance. Mr. Long replied "yes." As there were no others wishing to speak for or against ZC 2005-02, Chairman Davis closed the public hearing. Ken Sapp, seconded by Randy Shiflet, motioned to approve ZC 2005-02. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Page 10 of 17 10/20/05 P&Z Minutes 13. PP 2005-01 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM JB & JB DEVELOPMENT FLP/JOHN BARFIELD, G. P. TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WOODLAND ESTATES SOUTH AND PRECINCT LINE OFFICE PARK (LOCATED IN THE 9200 BLOCK OF MARTIN DRIVE - 8.515 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Green presented PP 2005-01. This case involves two pieces of property. They adjoin and have a common property line. The east side will be commercial and the west side will be residential. The Development Review Committee reviewed the plat and Public Works has provided a memo stating that the plats are ready for the Commission's consideration. Staff recommends approval of PP 2005-01. Chairman Davis asked Mr. Long to come forward. The City has seen a lot of variances come forward on residential corner lots regarding the side yard setbacks. The corner lots on Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1 & Lot 14, Block 2 need to be a little wider to prevent future variance requests. The Commission believes that some square footage can be pulled from adjacent lots. The interior lots would still meet the minimum and give the corner lots a little more. Mr. Long responded that it would just meet the minimum which could make the lots tight. Chairman Davis and the Commission members briefly discussed the issue and concluded with the Chairman calling fora motion withtheirequirernent that Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1 & Lot 14, Block 2 be a minimum width of9Ð~ft:but; maximized to 92-ft. if possible. .~ Ken Sapp, seconded by Scott Wood, motioned toapprovePP 2005..Q1 with the stipulations specified by the Chairman. The motion was approved unanimously (7..Q). 14. ZC 2005-19 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM PHIFER/HOGAN PARTNERS, L.P.FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL TO "R-2" SINGLE FAMIL YRESIDENTIAL (LOCATED IN THE 8500 BLOCK OF SHADY GROVE ROAD - 5.99 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Green presented ZC 2005-19. This tract of land is slightly less than six acres in size. The property is located north of Shady Grove Road and west of Davis Boulevard. The property is currently zoned "AG" Agricultural and the request is for "R-2" Single Family Residential. The "R-2" would require a 9,000 sq. ft. lot minimum and a 2,000 sq. Page 11 of 17 10/20/05 P&Z Minutes ft. house minimum. The Comprehensive Plan in this area depicts low density single family uses for the area. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Davis opened the public meeting. Don Phifer, 8360 Thornhill Drive, came forward. Mr. Phifer is here on behalf of Phifer/Hogan Partners. Patti McCain, 8508 Steeple Ridge Drive, came forward. Ms. McCain wanted to know how many homes will be built, what they will look like, and when construction would start. Chairman Davis explained that this is a zoning request which is to determine whether this is the best use for this property, not the details of what the homes will look like and when construction will start. The Chairman explained that the applicant will still need to come before the Board with a preliminary and final plat. Ms. McCain stated that her opposition depends on what the value of these homes are expected to be and what they are going to look like. She is concerned about how it will affect the property values for the Steeple Ridge Subdivision. Chairman Davis suggested that Ms. McCain go look at the homes in Country Place Estates on Davis Boulevard as Mr. Phifer is currently developing there. Zoning controls how big the lot is and the minimum size of the house. ' For this' zoning case, the minimum house size is 2,000 sq. ft. It is very rare that a builderjustbuilds the minimum. Ms. McCain stated her concern about the density iand woulddike' to see fewer homes built. How will this affect the traffic and drainage? Chairman Davis explained to Ms. McCain that those are all platting issues that will 'have to be met at the platting stage. Mr. Phifer stated that what is proposed is a 21 lot subdivision. Two of those lots will be open space and the other 19 will be homes. Due to the issues surrounding corner lots, entry features will be created instead to stay away from the corner lot issues. There will be an HOA in the development. The houses will be around 3,500 to 4,000 sq. ft. and run around $105.00 a sq. ft. Chairman Davis asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak. There were none and the Chairman closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Bill Schopper, seconded by Don Bowen, motioned to approve ZC 2005-19. The motion carried unanimously (7 -0). 15. ZC 2005-16 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM ROYAL BUILDING CORPORATION AND COMIS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL TO "R-2" SINGLE FAMILY Page 12 of 17 10/20/05 P&Z Minutes RESIDENTIAL (LOCATED IN THE 6800 BLOCK OF SIMMONS ROAD - 3.16 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Green presented ZC 2005-16. The request before the Commission this evening is two separate tracts of land. They are across the street from one another. The property is located in the 6800 block of Simmons Road immediately south of Amundson Drive. Currently both tracts are zoned Agricultural. The request is for "R-2" Single Family Residential. Minimum lot size would be 9,000 sq. ft. and the minimum house size would be 2,000 sq. ft. The Comprehensive Plan depicts low density residential uses. Staff recommends approval of ZC 2005-16. Chairman Davis mentioned the letter of opposition that was received in the mail by Patricia Stewart dated 10/13/2005. Mr. Schopper asked Mr. Green if a preliminary plat for this site had been submitted yet. Mr. Green answered no. Chairman Davis opened the public hearing. Mr. Long, j1615 Precinct Line Road, came forward. Mr. Long is the engineer representing the applicant. The applicant does have a preliminary sketch:available. The applicant is proposing eight lots facing Simmons Road and two half acre lots on the northeast corner. Gale Schwab, 8713 Stewart Drive, filled out a comment:card stating·that sheis against ZG2005-16, but did not wish to speak. -', Ralph Schwab, 8713 Stewart Drive, came forward. Mr. Schwab's property is' located east of Tract 1, north of Stewart Drive. Mr. Schwab stated that he is against the zoning change because of how many houses that are proposed. Paul Gorbet, 8720 Amundson Drive, came forward. Mr. Gorbet agrees with Mr. Schwab and is against ZC 2005-16. Mr. Long stated that each lot is very deep and will be more than 9,000 sq. ft. which is the minimum for "R-2". On the other side the lot will be split into two creating half acre lots. Chairman Davis asked staff what the zoning was for the property southeast of Tract 1 on Copper Canyon. Mr. Green answered that the property to the south is "AG" and "R- 2" both vacant and large lot single family. Closer to Copper Canyon, Mr. Green believes they may be "R-2" with some "R-3". Chairman Davis asked Mr. Green about north and west of the property. Mr. Green answered that the property to the north is "R-3" and west of the property is "R-2". Page 13 of 17 10/20/05 P&Z Minutes Ms. Cole stated that Copper Canyon is old "R-2;" smaller square footage on houses and lots. It doesn't meet current "R-2". Chairman Davis closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Mr. Wood stated that he'd rather see fewer houses with larger lots. Mr. Bowen stated that this property is surrounded by"R-2". Mr. Shiflet asked Mr. Van Nieuwenhuize, Assistant Director of Public Works to address the streets. What would happen to the street if this was approved? Mr. Van Nieuwenhuize responded that the street would be widened to a 50-ft. right-of-way, 31-ft. of pavement. Scott Wood motioned to deny ZC 2005-16. The motion did not receive a second. Bill Schopper, seconded by Don Bowen, motioned to approve ZC 2005-16. The motion carried (6-1) with Scott Wood voting against ZC 2005-16. Ms. Cole added that the Comprehensive Plan shows low density use and the surrounding area is zoned "R-2". She stated that this zoning fits this area. Chairman .Davis commented that Mr. Schwab has a 2-% acre, tract of land; the piece to the west is .99 acres with the lots showing that the houses will face away from him. Mr. ,Schwab will see backyards and open space. The drivewayswoutd be off of Simmons Road not Stewart Drive. Mr. Davis encouraged the builder to protect the landowner to the east. 16. RP 2005-07 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM J & J NRH 100 FLP TO APPROVE THE REPLAT OF LOTS 42R1R THROUGH 42R10R, BLOCK 10 BRANDONWOOD ESTATES PHASE II (LOCATED IN THE 7500 BLOCK OF SHADY GROVE ROAD- 4.754 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Green presented RP 2005-07. Staff has reviewed this plat and Public Works has provided a memo stating that this plat is ready for the Commission's consideration. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Davis added that this plat is going from 12 lots to 10 lots. Page 14 of 17 10/20/05 P&Z Minutes Mark Long, 1615 Precinct Line Road, came forward. Mr. Long stated that the Commission had approved this plat originally as 12 lots. The applicant would like to go to 10 lots for larger lots and larger homes. Bill Schopper, seconded by Brenda Cole, motioned to approve RP 2005..Q7. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 17. AP 2005-06 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM FOUNTAIN RIDGE, L.T.D. TO APPROVE THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 20, 25, & 26, BLOCK 2 FOUNTAIN RIDGE ADDITION (LOCATED IN THE 6000 BLOCK OF TURTLE CREEK COURT AND THE 8100 BLOCK OF MARBLE FALLS DRIVE). APPROVED Mr. Green explained that Lots 20 and 25 in the Fountain Ridge Subdivision are immediately adjacent to Lot 26 which is common open space. The purpose of the amended plat is· to add width to Lots 20 and 25. The Fountain Ridge Development was developed under Town Center zoning with deed restrictions and regulations that would go with this property. One of those requirements was for certain size lots in:certain areas of this plat. As the developer went about looking to develop these two lots it was noticed that these lots did not meet the minimum width requirements stated in the deed , restrictions., The purpose of this amended plat is to add additional width to thoseJots'to meet the minimum standards of the deed restrictions that have. already 'been, 'adopted for the property. Staff recommends approval of AP 2005-06. Chairman Davis called for a motion. Randy Shiflet, seconded by Don Bowen, motioned to approve AP 2005..Q6. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 18. PP 2005-18 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM JOHNSON DIVERSIFIED ENTERPRISES TO APPROVE THEPRELlMINARYPLA T OF LIBERTY VILLAGE (LOCATED IN THE 7700 BLOCK OF DAVIS BOULEVARD 7.513 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Green presented PP 2005-18, the preliminary plat for the first RI-PD development approved by P&Z and City Council. This plat mimics the concept plat which was approved for this development. Public Works has provided a memo outlining a few Page 15 of 17 10/20/05 P&Z Minutes minor corrections that Staff would like to see on the final plat. Those corrections involve straightening some property lines and segregating some of the easements from one another and identifying open spaces. Staff supports the plat based on the memo from Public Works. Mr. Green further explained that the City adopted the Oncor Ordinance. The ordinance deals with the placement of utility systems in the rear of platted lots rather than in the front. The City knew that from time to time there would be subdivisions where it would be technically impossible or perhaps environmentally a better situation if the utilities were located in the front rather than the rear. The decision was made and incorporated into the ordinance that should a developer want to place transformer boxes, cable boxes or phone boxes in the front, the developer could address that at the preliminary plat stage of the development. A letter has been provided from Johnson Diversified Enterprises, Inc. requesting a waiver to place utilities in the front. Ms. Cole asked Mr. Green to read the waiver written into the Oncor ordinance. Mr. Green complied: "exceptions to the rear lot location may be granted by providing facts and circumstances to the Planning & Zoning Commission at the preliminary plat stage to demonstrate rear lot utility location is not technically or environmentally feasible". Rob Adams, 'Adams Engineering, came forward. Mr. Adams is representing the applicant. Chairman :Davis asked Mr. Adams if he concurs with the memo provided by Public Works.' Mr. Adams concurred. Chairman Davis 'stated that the applicant is requesting front utilities. Mr. Davis asked if , the applicaht, Mr: Johnson, is present. Mr. Adams answered no. Chairman Davis asked Mr. Adams if there was anything else that needed to be added to the letter that was provided by Mr. Johnson in regards to the utilities being located in the front. Mr. Adams responded that these are going to be small backyards. If the utilities are in the backyard it will restrict the homeowners from making certain improvements in the backyard. Chairman Davis asked if the easement would be 7 % ft., which is standard. Mr. Green answered yes. Mr. Schopper asked Mr. Adams how difficult would it be to put the utilities in the rear. Mr. Adams responded that the problem is not with the developer. The homeowners will have to be the one to deal with the restrictions. By putting the utilities in the rear, Mr. Johnson believes that the builders and homeowners are not going to have the flexibility to make improvements. The homes are clustered. There are shared patios on the sides and cross easements. The Commission members had further discussion regarding the placement of the utilities and then the Chairman called for a motion. Page 16 of 17 10/20/05 P&Z Minutes Brenda Cole, seconded by Bill Schopper, motioned to approve PP 2005-18 subject to the utilities in the rear and subject to Staff's comments. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Chairman Davis suggested to Mr. Adams that this plat needs to be taken to TXU so that they can design where they are going to place the large transformers. They usually have one for every eight to fifteen lots. That may affect where you may place some easements. This Commission doesn't see any technical reasons why they can't be placed in the rear, or any environmental issues such as trees or drainage easements. Mr. Adams asked what Mr. Johnson's course of action would be if he chose to pursue this matter. Chairman Davis answered that Mr. Johnson has the right to bring it back. He reminded Mr. Adams that the final plat will not come before the P&Z Commission unless the final plat meets the requirements of the preliminary plat, which are that the utilities be placed in the rear. 19. ADJOURNMENT As there was no other business, the Chairman adjoumed the regular meeting at 8:46 p.m. Chairman C~\'~'1)~6 ..' \ Richard Davis Ken Sapp Page 17 of 17 10/20/05 P&Z Minutes