Loading...
Minutes P&Z 04/17/2003MINUTES OF A REGULAR SESSION FOR THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 17 APRIL 2003 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trophy Club, Texas met in a Regular Session meeting 17 April 2003, at 7:00 pm in the Public Works Conference Room of the Public Works Building, 100 Municipal Drive, Trophy Club, Texas 76262. COMMISSIONERS ATTENDANCE: Chairman Hill Vice Chairman Gilliland Commissioner Ashby Commissioner Reed Commissioner Rodgers Commissioner Sheridan Commissioner Stephens STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT: Mary Moore Dan Boutwell Sterling Thomas Rutledge Scott Gibson Randy Briggs David Cunningham Jay Marsh Thomas Khamooshi Mr. & Mrs. Pagano Conrad Sharpe Rick Helmig Linda Taylor present arrived at 7:27pm absent present present present absent Recording Secretary Planning Consultant Town Engineer Town Engineer Community Development Manager, arrived at 7:15pm Applicant/Developer Applicant/Engineer Applicant/Pate Engineer Applicant/Property Owners Applicant/Property Owner Trophy Club Baseball Association Reporter, Keller Citizen 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order at 7:10 pm, and announced a quorum was present. 2. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION RELATIVE TO A RETAINING WALL WAIVER REQUEST TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN TOWN ORDINANCE NO. 2002-42 P&Z, SECTION 4 ENTITLED "RETAINING WALL REGULATIONS", SUBSECTION "C" ENTITLED "TYPE OF RETAINING WALL AND CONSTRUCTION", (1) PERTAINING SPECIFICALLY TO THE MATERIAL FOR RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT, FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1106 SUNSET DRIVE, LOT 390 OF SECTION FIVE. (APPLICANT: JOSEPH S. PAGANO) N:\kfleck\Private\PLANNING & ZONING\MINUTES\2003\APR\04172003 REG SES.doc Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Session Meeting 17 April 2003 Mrs. Pagano addressed the Commission. The crosstie retaining wall was taken out because it was in need of being replaced. Shortly after the replacement began, the Pagano's were stopped and told they could not replace the wall with the same material, With the Pagano's financial situation, it would be cost prohibitive for them to replace the wall with any other material than crossties. Chairman Hill clarified that the applicant was seeking a waiver due to economic hardship. Mrs. Pagano agreed. The wall is about ninety feet (90') long and approximately thirty- two inches (32") high. Chairman Hill proceeded to read Section 14(A) of the Fence Ordinance, pertaining specifically to waivers. Commissioner Reed asked about the applicant's retirement. Mrs, Pagano stated that her husband has no retirement plan, and she receives only $200 a month. Ms. Pagano stated that if the request were denied, they would not be able to replace the retaining wall. Cost estimates for a cinderblock or stonewall would be around $10,000. The crossties have already been purchased. In order for the ties to be returned, the applicant would have to pay a 15% return fee. The cost of the crossties was $800.00. Commissioner Rodgers asked if a professional would install the ties. Ms. Pagano said yes. Commissioner Rodgers went on to say that she felt the applicant had exhibited the hardship very clearly. A motion was made to recommend approval of the waiver due to economic hardship. Motion: Reed Second: Sheridan Ayes: Hill, Rodgers Nays: None Action: 4-0 Motion carried. This item will be recommended for approval to the Town Council at their 5 May 2003 meeting, Ms. Pagano stated TLC Landscaping would install the wall. Chairman Hill directed the applicant not to have the wall installed until the waiver process was complete, Ms. Pagano agreed. 3. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION RELATIVE TO A FENCE WAIVER REQUEST TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN TOWN ORDINANCE NO. 2002-42 P&Z, SECTION 3 ENTITLED "FENCES", SUBSECTION "B" ENTITLED "HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS", (3) PERTAINING SPECIFICALLY TO THE PLACEMENT OF A SIDE YARD FENCE ADJACENT TO A SIDE STREET, FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 102 SUMMIT COVE, LOT 15, BLOCK 2 OF THE SUMMIT COVE ADDITION. (APPLICANT: CONRAD SHARPE) N:\kfleck\Private\PLANNING & ZONING\MINUTES\2003\APR\04172003 REG SES.doc [7/10/03 6:24:37 PM] Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Session Meeting 77 April 2003 Chairman Hill read the staff comments from the Commissioner's packets. The fence is located just across the street from the M.U.D. Building. The fence was initially approved in error by staff. The fence runs along the side yard adjacent to Municipal Drive and had it been constructed per the Ordinance, the applicant's rear yard would have only been approximately thirty feet (30') wide. Mr, Sharpe had no comments. There was no discussion by the Commissioners. A motion was made to recommend approval of the fence waiver. Motion: Sheridan Second: Rodgers Ayes: Hill, Reed Nays: None Action: 4-0 Motion carried. This item will be recommended for approval to the Town Council at their 5 May 2003 meeting. 4. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION RELATIVE TO THE REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF 22.417 ACRE TRACT OF LAND KNOWN AS TROPHY WOOD BUSINESS CENTER, LOCATED GENERALLY TO THE NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 114, WEST OF T.W. KING ROAD AND SOUTH OF HANNA COURT AND JAMIE COURT. APPLICANT: PATE ENGINEERS. (FP -03-004) Chairman Hill asked for comments from Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Marsh. At that time, they had no comments for the Commission. Mr. Boutwell stated that the majority of the comments pertaining to the Final Plat were engineering related. The majority of Mr. Boutwell's comments had been addressed which were mostly cosmetic. Mr. LeGrand addressed the Commission and stated that there were several outstanding issues yet to be resolved on the plat. One of those issues relates to an issue with Oncor that has caused concern over the alignment of Trophy Wood Drive. The second item of concern is that staff has not received any assurances from the Town of Westlake regarding Trophy Wood Drive. Additionally, the TXDOT permits have not been issued. Although this is not an issue that should hold up approval of the plat, it is something that will need to be resolved prior to the issuance of a building permit, Mr. LeGrand went on to stress that the cause for most of his concern was due to the Oncor, Trophy Wood Drive alignment issue. Chairman Hill stated that he had not seen the letters from Oncor. N:\kfleck\Private\PLANNING & ZONING\MINUTES\2003\APR\04172003 REG SES.doc [7/10/03 6:24:37 PM] Page 3 Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Session Meeting 17 April 2003 Mr. Rutledge addressed the Commission. Oncor produced two letters regarding this issue, The first letter Oncor provided Pate Engineering and their developer was somewhat of a cursory review in nature that generally stated they did have the right to cross the easement. Mr. Rutledge's experience with Oncor is that they have a very lengthy, detailed review process. When their easements are crossed, Oncor has set criteria for that. Upon receiving the letter from Oncor, Mr. Rutledge contacted them to find out what setbacks would be required off the pole that is currently centered in the median of Trophy Wood Drive. For whatever reason, the reviewer who wrote the initial letter, Tommy Newsom, apparently did not understand the plans and thought that some of the roadway infrastructure was pre-existing. The first letter was followed up with a second letter and gave the criteria by which to follow. Mr. Rutledge went on to say that there are some flags in the correspondence from Oncor that staff feels would be in everyone's interest, both the Town and the developer, that we make sure that Oncor is satisfied, that they will actually permit the road to align currently where it does align. Staff raised three flags for everyone's consideration, being that this is something that is both for the Town and the developer. The first item is that a road cannot cross an Oncor easement at an angle flatter than 45 degrees, The second is that, "licenses for parking will be granted for overflow parking only, and no code required parking will be allowed," In other words, for lots 1 & 2 of block A, in order to meet code requirements for parking there could be no parking within that easement. At this time, it is not known what those uses will be, but staff raises the flag for the Town and the developer, that as development occurs, especially on lots 1 &2, parking will be granted for overflow parking only that will meet a code requirement as part of the building permit. There is an easement that cuts right through the middle of what is shown as lot 2. Nothing has been presented by the developer that says that would be a problem, however, staff would like to point out that issue as something to be considered in the development of that lot. Commissioner Sheridan asked Mr. Rutledge if he was quoting Oncor regulations. Mr. Rutledge stated that he was reading from information entitled, "Oncor Electric Delivery Company Guidelines for Use of Company Property by Others". In their cover letter, they state, "I am enclosing our guidelines for third party use of Oncor ROW for your use in preparing your plans." Mr. Cunningham inquired about the Oncor letter referring to fee simple owned ROW. They would be dealing with an easement, not a fee simple Oncor ROW. The land is owned by Midwest Realty, not by Oncor, therefore there is a distinguishing difference between fee simple land and parking under an easement. Commissioner Sheridan stated page 2 or 3 of the guidelines states that easements follow the same guidelines. This is part of the deregulation problem. Mr. Rutledge proceeded with the third issue from Oncor. An existing grade shall not be disturbed, excavated or filled within twenty-five feet (25') of the nearest edge of any tower. That means nothing can be built within twenty-five feet (25') of the edge of an existing tower. Mr. Rutledge said he felt it was in everyone's best interest to go through the process, if the developer wishes to negotiate these guidelines with Oncor. However, to approve the plat, it seems like it would not be in everyone's best interest to do that until we are sure what Oncor is or is not going to allow to happen there. N:\kfieck\Private\PLANNING & ZONING\MINUTES\2003\APR\04172003 REG SES.doc [7/10/03 6:24:37 PM] Am Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Session Meeting 77 April 2003 Mr. Cunningham agreed, saying that he was not privy to the contents of the second letter until only a few minutes prior to the discussion. He suggested the Final Plat be tabled, possibly moved to the next meeting in order to get the issue resolved. Since this is a city street, he requested the Town's assistance with Oncor. Regarding the grade issue, Pate Engineering has gone to great lengths to set the street grade at an elevation where the grades are not disturbed. The other tower is not within 25 feet of any ROW. Mr, Cunningham stated that he felt they had a chance to work through those two issues, however he is concerned about the parking issue. The worst-case scenario would be to flare Trophy Wood Drive to get a wider median at that section of street. Chairman Hill concurred. He stated that he would like to see the situation with Oncor resolved prior to endorsing a Final Plat, but would also like to see something in the way of documentation from TXDOT and the Town of Westlake. In addition, the letter from the City of Southlake should be clarified. The progress with Oncor will determine when this item will be back before the Commission. Mr. Cunningham asked that this item be placed on the next agenda. Chairman Hill said it could be placed on the next agenda, however it may again need to be tabled to another meeting, Mr. LeGrand agreed to discuss the Oncor issue with the Town Manager in order to address Mr. Cunningham's request for Town assistance. A motion was made to table the item to 1 May 2003. Motion: Reed Second: Rodgers Ayes: Hill, Gilliland, Sheridan Nays; None Action: 5-0 Motion carried. 5. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND APPROPRIATE ACTON RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TOWN ORDINANCE NO. 2002-38 P&Z, ESTABLISHING SIGN REGULATIONS FOR THE TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB, PERTAINING SPECIFICALLY TO THE CREATION OF PROVISIONS DEFINING SPORTS ASSOCIATIONS AND SPORTS FACILITIES CRITERIA. (PRESENTER: RANDY BRIGGS) Mr, Briggs addressed the Commission and said that he had contacted Rick Helmig with the Baseball Association about the signage issue. Mr. Helmig then addressed the Commission. Chairman Hill asked for specific information, such as quantity, size, materials, time period, etc. Mr. Helmig said they were looking at a 4', circular sign in the shape of a baseball for sponsors of the baseball association. It would have places on the sign for the donator's name. The sign would be constructed of thick cardboard. The letters would be colored tape. The association would like to put up as many of these signs as possible, N:\kfleck\Private\PLANNING & ZONING\MINUTES\2003\APR\04172003 REG SES.doc [7/10/03 6:24:37 PM] Page 5 Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Session Meeting 17 April 2003 most likely 5-10. They would face the infield, up against the green guard fence. They would stay up and would not be visible from the backside of the fields. The material will last for approximately two years. Mr. Boutwell stated the signs would be inside the facility, so they are somewhat unique. They would not be advertising signs and they would be consistent with the use of the site, therefore they could be considered as a customary use for a ballpark. He went on to say that this is a unique sign use and would most likely need to revise the Ordinance to address these types of sign uses. A motion was made to recommend to the Town Council approval of a meritorious exception allowing approximately 4' in diameter baseball motif signs located on the inside face of the outfield fences at the baseball fields at Independence Park and Beck Park for a two year period, allowing the Commission to observe the durability and wear- ability of the signs, and at that time the Baseball Association will come before the Commission for another exception, that the signs can only be located on the fences with the green mesh on the outfield fences, and that they will cooperate with Town staff to maintain the signs in an acceptable state of repair and the signs will be replaced if found to be unacceptable. Motion: Gilliland Second: Reed Ayes: Hill, Rodgers, Sheridan Nays: None Action: 5-0 Motion carried. 6. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED REPEAL TO TOWN ORDINANCE NO. 2003-05, REGULATING THE DEVELOPMENT OF OIL AND GAS WELLS WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB. (PRESENTER: PLANNING & ZONING CHAIRMAN HILL) Chairman Hill explained the history of this agenda item. Commissioner Rodgers inquired about pipeline locations and safety. Chairman Hill stated that applicants would have to designate easements. Vice Chairman Gilliland voiced concern over the noise. Commissioner Rodgers discussed runoff. Mr. Boutwell addressed road use and repair, Chairman Hill reminded the Commission that the Ordinance addresses road repair. Mr. Boutwell clarified that the permits for drilling would be issued through a zoning process referred to as SUP, Special Use Permits. NAkf1eckTrivateTLANNING & ZONING\MINUTES\2003\APR\04172003 REG SES.doc [7/10/03 6:24:37 PM] Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Session Meeting 17 April 2003 Chairman Hill stated that the applicant would be required to submit a development plan for the wells. Applicants would need to show a plan with roadway designs and pipeline locations. Commissioner Sheridan offered that roads may be moved, however pipelines are not likely to be moved. Discussion was conducted regarding what to expect from installation of oil and gas wells, Commissioner Rodgers asked about the possibility of destabilized ground. Chairman Hill stated that was not a concern. If sour gas were to be encountered during the drilling process, they will be instructed to cease production. Chairman Hill addressed road repair, discussion ensued. Mr. Boutwell stated that we should require a master plan designating layout of and around the pipelines. Commissioner Sheridan suggested requiring applicants to use existing Right -of -Ways. Mr. Boutwell caution the Commission or locating pipelines next to water lines. Vice Chairman Gilliland discussed temporary fencing. Extended discussion continued over fencing language and requirements to improve the aesthetics of the sites. Extended discussion continued over landscaping buffers by Vice Chairman Gilliland, Mr. Briggs was directed to check into Noise Ordinance Discussion was concluded. Staff was instructed to incorporate the changes from the meeting into the Ordinance. MARCH 2003 APRIL00 A motion was made to approve the minutes, as amended. Motion: Sheridan Second: Reed Ayes: Hill, Gilliland, Rodgers Nays; None Action: 5-0 Motion carried. 8. ADJOURNMENT. Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at approximately 11:00 pm. N:\kfleck\Private\PLANNING & ZONING\MINUTES\2003\APR\04172003 REG SES.doc [7/10/03 6:24:37 PM] Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Session Meeting 17 April 2003 I- -,Get�e-/Aiill, hairman C. Fleck, Planning N Zoning Coordinator NAkfieckTrivateTLANNING & ZONING\MINUTES\2003WPR\04172003 REG SES.doc [7/10/03 6:24:37 PM] 9�