PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - DOC by keara

VIEWS: 114 PAGES: 13

									CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MAY 27, 2008
(Meeting video accessed at - http://gptx.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=441)

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Tom Austin, Vice-Chairman Bob Murphy, Secretary, Jerry King, Commissioners Carol Ann Adams, Dave Lester, Phil Philipp, Jayne Christian, and Cindie Moss. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Dr. Scott Moulton CITY STAFF PRESENT: Bill Crolley, Director of Planning and Development, Kevin Lasher, Chief City Planner, Mary Elliott, Senior Planner, Martin Barkman, Senior Planner, Steve Alcorn, Assistant City Attorney, and Chris Hartmann, Executive Secretary. Chairman Tom Austin called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: disapproval of plats without prejudice for the following agenda items: #1-P080601, Final Plat, West Oakdale Addition and #2-RP080601, Replat, Friendship Meadows. (The above agenda items are not public hearing items). Motion was made to disapprove the above listed plats without prejudice for cases P080601 and RP080601. The action and vote recorded as follows: Motion: Murphy Second: King Ayes: Austin, Murphy, Lester, King, Adams, Moss, Christian, and Philipp. Nays: None Approved: 8-0 Motion carried. AGENDA ITEM #3-APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion was made to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of May 12, 2008. The action and vote recorded as follows: 1

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Motion: Murphy Second: King Ayes: Austin, Murphy, Lester, King, Adams, Moss, Christian, and Philipp. Nays: None Approved: 8-0 Motion carried.

MAY 27, 2008

AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #4-FE080501, Fence Exception, Plaza 303 Shopping Center, 313 Pioneer Parkway (Council District 2). Senior Planner Mary Elliott presented this case to the Commission for approval of a Fence Exception for a commercial lot adjoining a residential zoning district. The site is currently zoned General Retail (GR) District and is generally located at the southeast corner of E. Pioneer Parkway and Corn Valley Road. The owner is Texas Plaza 303 Limited. The applicant is Quine & Associates. The agent is T-Bar Fence. The applicant is proposing a corrugated metal fence instead of the six (6) foot masonry fence required for a business with residential adjacency. The applicant originally made this request to the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 26, 2006 (FE061001). That request was denied. According to Article 8, Section 23.1.A, All nonresidential development except for schools, day care centers and religious institutions, shall be required to erect a “Type 1” fence on property lines adjacent to any property which is zoned for single family detached, single family attached, or two-family residential uses. Plaza 303 Shopping Center, Lot 1 is adjacent to lots that are zoned Single Family-Three (SF-3), therefore, the “Type 1” fence requirement applies for new development. The required fence for non-residential uses shall be constructed of brick masonry, concrete panels, or architectural concrete masonry units for any portion of a fence adjacent to a residential zoning, adjacent to a street, or visible from and within 200 feet of a public street. The minimum height of a required screening fence shall be six (6) feet. A wood fence currently exists on the property that conforms to screening fence requirements in place prior to June 2003, when the current screening requirements were approved. The applicant may keep the existing fence, but if the owner of the property chooses to upgrade the building material, then the new material must conform to the current standard or a variance will need to be granted to upgrade to another nonconforming material. 1. The applicant is requesting a variance to the masonry screening fence required for a business with residential adjacency.

Since the applicant is requesting the above noted appeals, the Development Review Committee (DRC) is not able to recommend full approval of this case. There are no identifiable hardships or rationale presented by this application that demonstrates why full compliance is not attainable. 2

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

MAY 27, 2008

The applicant is not providing sufficient provisions or compensatory measures, as requested by the DRC, which could potentially lessen the impact of the requested appeals. Commissioner Phillipp asked if the existing fence was in good condition and has been maintained. Mrs. Elliott replied when she visited the site she noticed at least two fence panels in need of repair. Jacob Postert, 1803 N Peyco Drive, Arlington, TX stepped forward representing the owner of the property. Mr. Postert said he is the fence contractor working for the owner of the shopping enter. He stated the required masonry fence for this location is not cost effective compared to the sheet metal fence. He said he spoke with some of the adjacent property owners who are in support of the proposed fence. Most of the residential properties are either rental properties, vacant, or being leased by realtors. Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. Postert how long he has been representing the property owner, and was he aware this case had already come before the Commission and was denied. Mr. Murphy further asked what has changed since this case was last presented to the Commission. Mr. Postert said he has worked for the property owner for the past three to five years, and was not involved in the previous case. He stated he was hoping to show the Commission that more neighbors to the south are in favor of the new fence and presented a petition with five signatures indicating support of a “new fence”. Mr. Postert stated the proposed fence would save the property owner some money and enhance the values of their properties. Assistant City Attorney Steve Alcorn asked Mr. Postert if he works for the landlord or the fence company. Mr. Postert replied he works for the fence company. Commissioner King asked what the level of occupancy for the shopping center is at the current time. Mr. Postert replied he was not sure. Commissioner Philipp asked when he spoke with the adjacent neighbors, did anyone expressed any opposition to the proposed fence. Mr. Postert replied no. He stated he spoke to five individual owners. Three properties appeared to be vacant. One occupant stated she would present a letter from the owner and herself in support of the proposed fence. However, that letter never arrived. 3

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

MAY 27, 2008

Commissioner King asked if the fence exception is denied would the owner maintain the existing fence in need of repair. Mr. Postert said the property owner would continue to do maintenance on the existing wood fence in lieu of constructing a new masonry fence. Mr. Murphy note the signed petition stated, “If you are interested in a new back fence, please sign and print your address below.” Mr. Postert stated he showed them pictures of the fence when he presented the letters to the neighborhoods. Commissioner Adams stated it is her understanding that the adjacent residences wanted to meet with the owner of the property and asked why the owner did not meet with the neighbors. Mr. Postert stated he was not aware the residence wanted to meet with the owner. Chairman Austin noted there were no other speaker cards submitted for this request. There being no further discussion on the case, Commissioner Murphy moved to close the public hearing and disapprove case FE080501. The action and vote recorded as follows: Motion: Murphy Second: Christian Ayes: Austin, Murphy, Lester, Adams, Moss, Christian, and Philipp. Nays: King Denied: 7-1 Motion carried. AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #5-SU080403, Specific Use Permit, EDA Auto Body Shop, 1915 Airport Street, (Council District 5). Senior Planner Martin Barkman presented this case to the Commission for approval of a Specific Use Permit for an auto body shop with a paint booth. This site is currently zoned Light Industrial-Limited Standards (LI-LS) District in the Central Business District-Three (CBD-3) Overlay District. The owner/applicant is Edwin Cifuentes. The owner is proposing to develop 0.40 acres on 4 existing platted lots for use as an auto body shop with a paint booth. There is one existing metal building constructed with a shop and canopy that is proposed to include a sales office and storage area. Only minor auto repair will be done on site for the “make-ready” of vehicles for sale. No auto sales will be done on site. An existing sheet metal fence exists on the site on the surrounding property boundaries. A masonry and wrought iron type fence exists along the street right-of-way. 4

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

MAY 27, 2008

The applicant’s plan indicates approximately 9 total parking spaces. Required parking for automotive uses is one space per 400 square feet of building area. Therefore nine spaces, including handicapped access spaces, will be the required parking requirement. The proposed landscaping exceeds the landscaping requirements for the Light Industrial (LI-LS) District. Hours of operation will be 7:00 am to 6:00 pm, Mondays through Friday, and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Saturdays. There will be four employees on this site. No appeals are being requested by the applicant. The Development Review Committee recommends approval of the request for a Specific Use Permit for auto body shop with a paint booth in a Light Industrial-Limited Standards (LI-LS) District in conformance with the conditions proposed in the draft ordinance. Chairman Austin noted there were no questions for staff. Victor Zuckerman, 5107 Thicket Trail, Grand Prairie, TX stepped forward representing the case. He noted Mr. Cifuentes buys the vehicles at the auto action, repairs them, and sells them out of the Country. Commissioner King asked if the owner currently has an existing car lot, and how long has the owner been in the auto body repair business. Mr. Zuckerman noted the owner has an existing sales lot operation on N.W. 19th Street. The owner originally purchased this property for use car sales, but decided that this location would be better suited for an auto body paint shop. Commissioner Lester asked if the owner is a sub contractor for vehicle transporters, and what volume of work does he perform Mr. Zuckerman replied the owner is not a sub contractor and ships about ten vehicles a month to various locations, including Latin America. Chairman Austin noted there were no speaker cards submitted for this request. There being no further discussion on the case, Commissioner Christian moved to close the public hearing and to approve case SU080403. The action and vote recorded as follows: Motion: Christian Second: Murphy Ayes: Austin, Murphy, Lester, King, Adams, Moss, Christian, and Philipp. Nays: None Approved: 8-0 Motion carried. 5

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

MAY 27, 2008

AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #6-SU080501, Specific Use Permit, Enterprise Rental-ACar, 401 E. Palace Parkway (Council District 1). Senior Planner Martin Barkman presented this case to the Commission for approval of a Specific Use Permit for an Auto Leasing facility. The site is currently zoned Planned Development District - 217 (PD-217) and is generally located north of Interstate Highway 30 and west of N. Belt Line Road. The owner is 401 Palace Parkway, LP. The applicant is Enterprise Leasing Company of DFW. Mr. Barkman stated the proposed location is an existing building consisting of 15,283 square feet, on 7.924 acres. The property is currently un-platted. The building was developed when the property was zoned as Planned Development No. 39. It was originally developed with City participation as the Sports Hall of Fame in February of 1980. When the Hall of Fame relocated, Southwest Airlines moved in to the facility and used it as their reservation center in May of 1989. The building is currently being marketed as a multi tenant office building. The proposed use will occupy 2,709 square feet in the southwest corner of the building. A majority of the building will be occupied by MedVance, a nurse training facility. The proposed use will function as an Enterprise car leasing facility. The facility will have 40 spaces for employee parking and leasing inventory, with 15-25 lease cars on site during a typical week. As part of the operation, a carwash bay is being proposed on the west side of the building for cleanup of vehicles prior to lease. Staff has expressed concern about the visibility of the car wash use from I-30 and Palace Parkway. The applicant has been requested to provide a covered bay with sand and grit trap for environmental requirements and provide masonry screening on three sides to reduce the visibility from I-30 and Palace Parkway, or to move the wash facility further north on the site. From the drawings provided, the applicant is proposing masonry screening only on the south side of the carwash. No additional screening or landscaping is being proposed to reduce visibility from Palace Parkway. The applicant has indicated that the site cannot afford to loose any additional parking spaces that the additional screening may require. Hours of operation shall be 8:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday and 9:00 am to 12:00 pm Saturday. The operation will be closed on Sunday. There will be 4 to 5 employees at this facility. 1. The current Planned Development 217 District does not allow a car leasing facility as a stand alone use. The applicant is appealing to be allowed to continue their operation within the district at the new location. The applicant is appealing to construct only the south screening fence around the car wash bay.

2.

No other appeals are being requested by the applicant. 6

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

MAY 27, 2008

Since the applicant is requesting the above noted appeals, the Development Review Committee (DRC) is not able to recommend full approval of this case. There is no rationale or supportable hardships presented by this application that demonstrates why full compliance is not attainable. The applicant has provided an existing survey of the site with minimal compensatory measures, as requested by the DRC, which could potentially lessen the impact of the requested appeals. Commissioner King asked where the carwash was to be located on the property. Mr. Barkman replied the carwash would be located on the southern end of the west side of the property. Commissioner King asked for clairification that staff prefers three screening walls around the car wash area. Mr. Barkman replied yes. Commissioner Philipp noted the site plan indicates that the lease cars would have to enter the carwash bay from the west side if one wall is built, but if three walls are put in then they would have to enter the carwash bay from the north. Mr. Barkman stated staff would work with the applicant and provide them with several alternatives as to how the three walls would be constructed. Jim Hazard, 2301 E. Lamar Blvd., Suite 175, Arlington, TX stepped forward representing the case. Eric Seles with Enterprise Rental–A-Car, 1305 Stonecrest Drive, Coppell, TX stepped forward in support of this request. He noted Grand Prairie Ford is making changes to their business operation and have asked Enterprise to relocate their business. He stated their current location, they are no longer visible since the new Race Track gas station blocks their storefront area facing Beltline Road. Most of their business comes from Grand Prairie Ford’s repair customers. Mr. Seles stated this is a great location for their new facility, but this location is also challenging because of the water and sewer lines located on the property influences the location of the car wash facility. It would be located a little south of the building towards IH-30 so that it can be constructed closer to an existing sanitary sewer line connection. Jim Hazard stated they are very limited on parking spaces due to lease commitments, but are willing to give up a third parking space to comply with the city’s request if the Commission directs them to install the three walls around the wash area. Commissioner Lester asked if they had already signed a lease on the building.

7

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

MAY 27, 2008

Mr. Hazard replied no, they only have a letter of intent pending receiving full approval by the City. Commissioner Murphy asked who are the owners of the building. Mr. Hazard replied the property is owned by two brokers and investors who specialize in the medical school business. Mr. Murphy asked for confirmation that the landlord will provide three walls if the Commission request it. Mr. Hazard replied yes, three screening walls would be built. Mr. Seles stated the cost of the walls would be born by Enterprise leasing. Chairman Austin noted there were no speaker cards submitted for this request. There being no further discussion on the case, Commissioner Murphy moved to close the public hearing and approve case SU080501 to allow a car leasing facility as a stand alone use in PD217 and denying the applicants appeal to construct only the south screening fence around the carwash bay, and require the applicant to work with staff in securing plan approval for the construction of three screening walls around the carwash bay. The action and vote recorded as follows: Motion: Murphy Second: King Ayes: Austin, Murphy, Lester, King, Adams, Moss, Christian, Moulton, and Philipp. Nays: None Approved: 8-0 Motion carried. AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #7-SU080502, Specific Use Permit, Bail Bond Office, 209 E. Main Street, Suite A (Council District 5). Senior Planner Mary Elliott presented this case to the Commission for approval of a a Specific Use Permit for a Bail Bond Office. The site is currently zoned Central Area (CA) and Central Business District No. 2 and is generally located at the southwest corner of East Main Street and S.E. 3rd Street. The owner/applicant is Charles Koerth. The agent is Jeff Hoffmann. The proposed bail bond office will utilize 825 square feet out of the approximate 3,400 squarefoot building. The office will provide other financial and legal services as described in the submitted operational plan. These will include surety bonds, fidelity and child custody bonds, auto insurance, immigration bonds, premium finance loans, private investigation service, and possibly Western Union service. The hours of operation will be Monday through Saturday from 8

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

MAY 27, 2008

7:00 a.m. to midnight, and Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The number of employees will be about one to four employees per shift. The 17 foot tall, masonry building is painted olive green and is situated at the front of an 8,050 square-foot lot. Nine parking spaces are provided at the back of the building. Additional parking is provided off-site with head-in parking across the street, and parking spaces in the access area along the railroad. There are no trees or shrubs on the site. The existing site layout has legal nonconforming status with respect to landscape and parking requirements. For this proposed use, the only significant physical change to the exterior will be the signage. New development or significant changes to the existing site are subject to development guidelines in the Unified Development Code. According to the Central Business District Overlay (Appendix R, Section 6.2-6.2.11), signs should fit within existing features of the building’s façade and not detract from or hide significant architectural details. The proposed signage is the same size as the existing sign. Article 9 “Sign Standards” of the UDC allows wall signage to encompass 15% of the front elevation. The total signage for this building comprises 9% of the front elevation. The proposed sign will have an illuminated panel with a neon border. The colors for the sign face will be blue for the horseshoe, red for the word “Lucky,” and yellow for the words “Bail Bonds.” The applicant is not requesting any appeals. The Development Review Committee recommends approval of this request as no appeals to the Unified Development Code or Central Business District No. 2 Overlay are being requested by the applicant. Ms. Elliott noted two emails submitted to staff in opposition to this request. The business owners along Main Street have expressed concerns, and believe this use would be detrimental to the development of downtown. Commissioner Murphy asked Mrs. Elliott to address retail/entertainment for the downtown area. He asked what would be the likelihood of downtown to become an entertainment district. Mrs. Elliott said downtown could become an entertainment district with the new renovation of the Uptown Theater, the Arts Council, and the new Farmers Market coming in. Charles Koenth, 2525 Sherwood Drive, Grand Prairie, TX stepped forward representing the case. Jeff Hoffman with Lucky Bail Bonds, 2326 Varsity Drive, Grand Prairie, TX stepped forward in support of this request. Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. Hoffman to address the types of services the business will perform and what percentage of financing do they perform. 9

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

MAY 27, 2008

Mr. Hoffman stated bail bonds are for people that are arrested and need representation with legal services. About 50% of their business involves financing to keep his clients bonded and insured. Commissioner Murphy asked if his firm has other locations, and asked why did they chose this area for a Bail Bonds office. He noted most of these types of businesses are usually located near jails. Mr. Hoffman said they do have several other locations in the Metroplex. The reason for choosing this location is because he lives in Grand Prairie and wants to stay in Grand Prairie. He has noticed downtown is being renovated and would like to locate his business downtown. Chairman Austin noted there were no speaker cards submitted for this request. Commissioner Lester said bail bonds businesses are a legitimate business, but the question is does this Specific Use Permit belong in downtown Grand Prairie at this particular location. There being no further discussion on the case, Commissioner Lester moved to close the public hearing and deny case SU080502. The action and vote recorded as follows: Motion: Lester Second: Christian Ayes: Austin, Murphy, Lester, Moss, Christian, and Philipp. Nays: King, Adams Denied: 6-2 Motion carried. AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #8-TA080501, Text Amendment, Article 4, Permissible Uses, Use Charts. Mr. Lasher asked the Chairman if there were any speaker cards submitted for this case. Chairman Austin stated no speaker cards have been submitted. Chief City Planner Kevin Lasher presented this case to the Commission to add and modify text in Article 4 including revisions to the "Use Charts". Additions, modifications and clarifications to the text include implementing editorial and technical corrections; creating regulatory provisions affecting Natural Gas Compressor Stations: adding provisions, definitions and establishing a proximity requirement for Specific Use Permits affecting Check Cashing businesses; establishing a proximity requirement for Specific Use Permits affecting Hotel and Motel uses; establishing a Specific Use Permit requirement for Drive Thru Retail Sales; establishing a proximity requirement for Specific Use Permits affecting certain uses involving commercial trucking and outdoor storage. The owner is the City of Grand Prairie. The applicant 10

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

MAY 27, 2008

is the City of Grand Prairie - Planning Department. The agent is Kevin Lasher and Martin Barkman. In December of last year, staff forwarded a proposed text amendment to Article 4 of the Unified Development Code to the City Council Development Committee for the regulation and design of natural gas compressor stations. From December 2007 to April 2008, these regulations were reviewed and modified at several meetings of the Committee. During this process, the Committee and staff also examined provisions contained in the Use Charts of Article 4 and identified additional land uses that either required updated regulations or that needed a modified review process to better assess their compatibility with other land uses. In deliberating the objectives of these amendments, the Committee and staff took time to find a balance between the need to ensure future development will be compatible with existing businesses and neighborhoods, while being cautious about over-regulating land uses in a manner that could possibly diminish the city’s ability to attract new businesses. From these deliberations, the following issues were identified:  A Specific Use Permit should be established for the regulation of Natural Gas Compressor Stations and that design standards should be put in place to make these stations compatible with the visual context of surrounding development. These proposed provisions were also reviewed by the City Council Public Safety, Health and Environmental Committee on December 7, 2007, who directed staff to forward the amendments affecting Natural Gas Compressor Stations to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration of a recommendation to the City Council. (See pages 15 thru 17 and 24 of Article 4)  That check cashing, pay check and car title loan businesses should be monitored more closely to ensure future locations of these businesses are compatible with surrounding land uses. Ordinances recently adopted by other cities regulating these businesses were examined. (See pages 18, 19 and 24 of Article 4)  That hotel and motel businesses should be monitored more closely to ensure future locations of these businesses, including the potential clustering of these uses, are compatible with surrounding land uses. (See page 26 of Article 4)  That all drive through retail sales businesses, including “beer barn” stores, should require a Specific Use Permit so that these businesses can be monitored more closely to ensure future locations are compatible with surrounding land uses. (See page 9 of Article 4)  That shipping warehouses and similar uses involving the outdoor storage of trucks and equipment should be monitored more closely to ensure future locations of these businesses are compatible with surrounding residential land uses. Similar concerns also exists within corridor overlay districts. (See pages 30 thru 32 and others of Article 4) 11

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

MAY 27, 2008

 That staff should revise the grid format and presentation for the Use Charts of Article 4 so that they may be more easily viewed and displayed on the city’s internet web site.  That technical and editorial corrections should be implemented primarily reflecting changes in other city codes that are referenced in the Article. Since the City Council Development Committee spent five meeting sessions carefully reviewing these proposed amendments, staff feels the Planning and Zoning Commission may not be able to adequately review and formulate a recommendation at just one hearing session. It is therefore proposed that two hearing sessions be held by the Commission so that they may have additional time to review the extent of these amendments. The first hearing will take place at the meeting of May 27, 2008, followed by another hearing with vote on June 9, 2008. Additional hearings may be scheduled at the discretion of the Commission. Public testimony pertaining to these amendments will be received by the Commission at all scheduled hearings. Once the Commission is comfortable with their knowledge of these proposed amendments, staff will ask the Commission to consider acting on a motion recommending the Council approve and adopt all amendments being presented. Commissioner Murphy noted the City of Arlington has restructured their hotel ordinance, and recommends staff and the Commission review the use of hotels to determine what is an upscale hotel, what is a full service hotel, and to address issues related to the size and type of facilities being regulated. Chairman Austin noted there were no speaker cards submitted for this request. There being no speaker cards or further discussion on the case, Commissioner Murphy moved to postpone the case for a seconded hearing scheduled for June 9, 2008. The action and vote recorded as follows: Motion: Murphy Second: Lester Ayes: Austin, Murphy, Lester, King, Adams, Moss, Christian, and Philipp. Nays: None Approved: 8-0 Motion carried. Commissioner Murphy stated in regards to the Bail Bonds case, this would be a good time to revisit the Central Business District area to determine if there are any changes that need to be made. Commissioner King moved to adjourn the meeting. 12

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

MAY 27, 2008

______________________________ Bob P. Murphy, Jr., Vice-Chairman

ATTEST:

_____________________________ Jerry King, Secretary

13


								
To top