Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e I'd like to call uh to order the meeting Planning and Zoning commission uh for January 14 2025 uh do we have any public comments evidently not uh okay we're supposed to consider the approval of the minutes for the November 12 2024 Planning and Zoning Comm commission meeting and take necessary action so we should uh call a vote on that do I receive uh uh motion to approve I second okay well is anybody going to record a vote or is it just recorded since we don't

yeah she okay record the vote okay okay I'm going to call for a vote my motion to approve approved all in favor I I didn't pick that okay uh hold a public hearing and consider a request from Cap's properties limited for the approval of a zoning change from FD future development District of a 134.5 plus or minus Acres of Deer Park development to sf1 single family one residential district on 32.5 Acres AC on a portion of track 3902 in the John H or survey abstract number 423 including Deer Park Estates block a and to sf2 single family to residential district on 101.7 acre comprising the remainder of track 3902 and tracks 393 and 39 07 of the John our survey abtract

423 and of tracks 62 and 64 of the William Porter survey number 437 located generally north of North Jefferson Avenue east and south of Deer Park Lane in the city of Mount Pleasant Titus County and take necessary action good evening um uh Commissioners so um this may be familiar to some of you Wade I don't know that you on PNC yet so we initially re reone the first portion of this that he read into on the 32.581978 reone the whole thing at the time they brought the case in and they I don't think they understood what I was asking but they wanted to just plat the whole thing and I told them we had to go back and rezone it all of it for them to do that so that's what we're doing tonight um the first phases were zoned single family one and also if you remember comprised and you'll see it in a minute comprised an old County subdivision that has acre lock on it but the applicant has added the whole whole property and wants to reone All Phases of it so this is where it it sits generally um at the intersection um where 271 and North Jefferson come together and slightly to the east of that the single family one portion that's marked on your map was reson but this whole thing they want to develop together basically um and so they um aren't going to change any of

that first part but they want the single family two zoning on these second P pieces that are outlining um and if you'll see you're outload in green primarily for additional flexibility to develop because there's some drainage challenges in there and it isn't going to be substantially different than the first phase but they wanted some flexibility so that they could keep um and have the opportunity to drop perhaps some of the Dimensions so they might keep 70 by 100 foot Lots consistent but have less than 10,000 square feet for example because of the lot configurations and that's where where that single family too came from it is um also across North Jefferson from our second case tonight that does have single family 2 zoning in it so um these are some of the details that I just went over and um they are just uh asking for that additional flexibility and they do intend for the structure to meet the minimum requirements and I'll go over that in a minute I have both uh zoning districts laid out for you so this is an aerial map that kind of shows where we are I went ahead and labeled where Junction this Junction subdivision is you both for your uh ability to orient to the site and also the fact that it happens to be the second case tonight um and this is a zoning map for this area so the green is future development and that was what um all of this was um until this development came in single family one for the first part single family two on the light purple is where the proposal is for those two and then you'll see that across right across

Jefferson is the junction subdivision that was zoned I think back in mid July so here are the minimum standards single family one has a lot area of about 10,000 square F feet that's um basically quarter acre lots um the minimum these are all minimum so minimum lot size is 70 by 100 the setbacks are basically the same in both um a little the interior uh side uh setbacks are a little bigger on the single family one single family two has a 7,000 squ ft minimum but if you'll notice the dimensions uh can go down to either 50 or 100 when it says 50 by 100 of course that doesn't add up to 7,000 that means you could have a 50 foot wide lot and the balance of the lot would have to equal 7,000 on the length and vice versa and this additional um flexibility is what the developer was looking for on the 70 by 100 so he would drop below 10,000 um he didn't want to have to sacrifice Lots because of the drainage that's pretty much why we're here um we do have in the city and way may not know this we have a minimum standards on size of house and it's 12,000 in single family one and 800 in single family two however um I'm very rare you would ever find somebody that would build those minimums even um on single family one so that really isn't going to be a either although typically that gets a little um more complex so the comprehensive plan for the area except for the part

that's already um been zoned for junction um which you see in that basically in that triangle um is envisioned as Community residential which is quarter acre to two acre lots that's what the comp plan calls it out to be um uh compact residential is envisioned for um lots that are smaller than that but they um our comprehensive plan discusses compact residential as being duplexes and uh Apartments town homes a very dense residential we I wasn't here when the comp plan was done but we are appear to be missing a a medal for residential subdivisions that are not dense and are not duplexes in town home but that are also not 10,000 foot Lots so um this this kind of is in a gray area and the fact that it is across the street from already single family to zoned um property is why this makes sense and why you'll see that uh staff is recommending that it be um approved the future land use map plan um for this area it will have to be amended similar to the way that it was amended when Junction went forward on its zoning case for that reason because the community residential does not uh meet the letter of the law I guess for um having single family two zoning in it right now that that happens at Council y'all don't have to take any action so this is

just Pages um from the comprehensive plan this is a discussion of the community residential Place type which was the um yellow and the Orange is the Compact and you'll see that it talks about patio homes town duplexes in other words uh very dense much uh more dense actually they would be closer to four 5,000 square foot um kind of properties and the middle between um a quarter and that is kind of not really called out on our comprehensive plan the utilities um there is water in that area the sewer extensions are underway and they may already be completed that will serve everything over there it's been this has been kind of um planned for residential development for some time so they're um underway uh property owners were notified they really only three um one is a property owner that is in the Junction area and then um there are there is another property owner in the very uh Far West Corner um that is also not luminant the balance of the property is luminant and so um and a lot of it is in the county as well they have sent back a um notification I just got it on my email right before the meeting started that they have no comment so the recommendation from staff is that we approve it based on and it says the future land use plan but that really has more to do with the the general area as being residential versus this particulars on the size of the property um that it is compatible with

the existing uses and the adjacent single family two zoning um that there are uh utilities available and that there won't be any detrimental impact on any existing uses in that area so if you have any questions I okay um uh we have one so um I don't see the developer here so um oh you do okay all right so I'm sorry um and so if you um want to ask any questions feel free to do so he's here perhaps he can answer them as well in uh in my very short time on this uh Planning and Zoning Commission if I'm not mistaken this piece of property has been brought to us several times for approval and then a change approval and then another change is that not correct I think even it may have even had a plat brought this had all kinds of things that one small piece and then it was in the county and all that but this the single family piece the big1 Acres that's added to that as far as I know that is just this is the new kind of um iteration that they um bring brought forward because they wanted go ahead and get all of the subdivision preliminary platted and they couldn't because it was still zoned future development hadn't been touched yet so I

think you may be thinking of that one little piece of single family one or you could be thinking perhaps of Junction subdivision I'm not sure but th this single family piece I think was raw land it hasn't ever come forward I couldn't find any record of it anyway okay all right thank you e and so I did I I I tried to jump in and and stop it and have the whole thing be brought forward together for the zoning so that we can do the platting all at one time time and everything moves smoothly through all those phases okay so that's where we are now at a point to bring all this together the uh single family one and the single family two and and get your lot sizes up to standard uh you have city services now water and sewer and so forth

I don't have any other questions anybody else is the reason just to go to the sf2 designation just literally because the limitation of the the lots and the drainage issues or whatever it's not like you're just trying to make smaller homes out there it's just you're limited okay all right any other question all right I guess we're ready to uh approve and go for a vote I'll make the motion to approve my second I call for a vote please I'm a yay yes approved unanimously approved I would like to in the future uh and this is partly uh my lack of preparation but uh these things are going through multiple changes and now we're in a situation where he says he's not going to change the lot size unless there's a drainage issue well now who's

going to decide uh that drainage issue and and is how many Lots is that potentially going to change so we're leaving an open-ended deal here looks to me like that that's left up strictly to the developers prerogative not the city's code or restrictions so the zoning that that you've just um suggested to city council for single family 2 allows for all of those minimums that I showed on the to be in place so for example once the property is zoned then another developer could technically come in and develop to those minimums they there're because zoning allows that is that likely to happen likely not however the um the preliminary plat that he talked about they they and there's some they're working on some things to get that back in and I didn't bring Bring It Forward because it was still kind of nebulous on Where the streets are and and all that um at the time that a preliminary plat comes forward and you will see that next um it can be approved and and those lot sizes are are there when they when you approve the preliminary plat and all of the civil construction plans are approved then they can start building when they build the streets and the roads and the drainage structures and then they lay out on the ground around the Lots um what is what happens is you may have easements there may be other power company may say no we need an easement here or that drainage has got and the engineer says no the drainage

has got to do this or that and it changes the configuration or a curve in the street that's actually built those things are turned on in into the plat the final plat um is looked at against the preliminary plat if it's not any sub substantive changes then it's considered um compatible with the preliminary plat that was originally approved and it's brought forward by staff to pnz for PL for final plat approval with the notation that it meets the preliminary plat now if they sold the property for example and to somebody else who changed the preliminary plat Alto together and came forward with um a new iteration with different streets or way smaller Lots on the existing streets or something like that then the final plat stage is where it would be held up we would have you know City staff would have said whoa you this CH this is too much of a change we can't let this happen if you bring this forward it it you're going to have to you run into issues even if it does meet the zoning it's out of compliance with the preliminary plat so once a preliminary plat is approved um you pretty much have to stay with that preliminary plat substantively or it has to go back through approval that being said the minimums on the zoning would take effect so technically um it could go back through a preliminary plat a new preliminary plat stage with a different owner that would be smaller Lots on that single family

two-piece uh that's what concerns me I mean we've approved the action and I don't have a problem with that but it U and a lot of this is my fault for not being knowledgeable enough and not following it but it looks like we're leaving an open-ended deal here and that and I hope that's not the case um no more so than Junction so the junction subdivision um is single family to right now too so it was basically done as far as I wasn't here but I mean it looks to be similar that they um they wanted single family too but as far as I can tell they're not 5500 foot Lots I know pan can probably talk to that uh we don't really have a so 7,000 square feet is the minimum um for single family 2 so they're not really they're never going to be 5,000 SQ foot Lots it wouldn't allow it that makes sense it's 50 by 100 but those would not be the same dimensions on the same lot so again it would the minimum could no not be any smaller than 7,000 square feet and single family to okay thank you I appreciate the explanation uh we're moving on to uh point five consider request from Pam scribing on behalf of singga group and owner and owner Robert Marin for approval of his 72 lot preliminary plat of the junction Edition subdivision situated in the John H or survey

abstract number 423 track 391 and the American subdivision block a lots 2 through 7 located north of Breezeway Drive in the junction of us 271 and US 271 business the city of Mount plon Texas and take action necessary so right across the street is the preliminary plat that was um shown earlier with the zoning again um the case map the x is where that triangle is that property kind of in the vicinity the case map shows the blue area that is the subdivision or the plat um the plat is not oriented quite the same as this way so you kind of in your brain need to turn it so that the point is north um you'll notice the north Arrow faces that way but it it doesn't fit very well on the slide or the paper and so this is how it's oriented um and as he discussed the minimums um are well in it in uh excess of the 7,000 square feet uh minimums and it's they're I don't think any of them are anywhere near 50 ft in in width which is a minimum them again but the the market basically drives a lot of the sizes of the properties and I don't think this would sell here so City staff is recommending approval with the following conditions for on the preliminary um that the civil engineering plans uh are approved prior to the final plat of course they had to be approved final uh prior to the construction of the infrastructure too for that matter um there is a required sidewalk provision in the city of Mount

Pleasant or if I put sidewalks on both sides of internal streets they are not shown on the plat it gets really busy um but I have asked for a a plat note on the plat that says 5 foot sidewalks are required and must be um installed at construction of the homes you can't put the sidewalks or it doesn't make sense to put the sidewalks in with the streets because you will tear up the sidewalks building the um houses so it's it's done as the lots are developed um that there be tex. approvals for the streets driveways and the boards so when you look at this the water is coming across uh 271 or um yeah and that to get the water lines through it's either water or sewer but to get any infrastructure um under uh High way text dots involved and they're um they are very picky about where they put that and so that approval has to be given to the subdivider uh and the developer as well as the actual placement of the driveways again um it takes teex out a long time to get that actual placement these are suggested areas uh for the driveways they meet Tech Do's minimums but again Tech doot will actually issue a letter that says they approve and so one of the conditions is that texto issues that letter um prior to the final plat so when the final plat is presented that approval comes with it um and that the final plat approval and the infrastructure acceptance by the city would happen prior to any building permits being issued and that um overall the development meets all building and fire requirements um as are presented so

I mean if there were any changes those would be any code changes those would be shown uh down the line in the in the actual construction those are City staff recommendations for the conditions on the preliminary plat any question this uh recommendations becomes part of this agreement upon our approval is that correct the recommendations have to be followed through after our approval after city after city council approves it at the preliminary plat house conditions that those are binding on what comes in with the final plat so um in in that regard so that that has to be shown and that basically tells the developer what we want to do um I I think they didn't on did not make them redo their their plat to put that one plat note in and I know they were talking about it I'm not sure it got put into to this one but it will be on the final plat where it will govern and be seen by any developer that buys a lot so they'll know they have to have a sidewalk and that's one of the Hang-Ups um that I found in the development when you have a subdivision and a Subdivision plat and lots get sold four or five years later and people don't know they're supposed to have sidewalks because it's not on a plat note nobody told them and you've got some properties with sidewalks and some without and then uh you know CFO gets issued on a house without sidewalks and then who pays for the sidewalk that has a gap all those things if you put a a plat node on the a final plat that tells everybody involved hey there's a sidewalk required and so that that's one of the reasons I'm doing it we don't have that as a requirement in our code but it's it makes sense and and and most

places do it actually okay I'm comfortable then that U that with your your considerations that the final plat will be complete and uh and meet all city codes Andor requirements including text Dot is that correct okay I'm good with it uh any questions okay let's record a vote please I motion to approve I second I'm a go yes yes thank you okay item six is the planning director's report so um first we had city council action um that was done before the holidays um on the business park and that one was approved by city council um one kind of update that uh sort of came through I know y'all were involved in it might have been before W was here um when we did Christus which was out there at the Anderson town uh Crossing subdivision or area that Chris's had bought a lot for the the and that went forward and got approved and everything but Anderson town Crossing was um kind of held up because there was going to be a street uh Anderson way I think was the name of it anyway um Techo held up their approval on that and held the whole thing up and so um there were uh negotiations with staff trying to help them get through uh on the Anderson Town

Crossing hurdle on textop but I understand um when I asked the last time that that project has been put on hold by the applicant and with no end date been listed I thought that would be interesting for you to know um we've gone uh' actually done I think one more that's not on here since the agenda was prepared but um I do one and two lot subdivisions or where lot lines are moved and there administrative plats that um where somebody Shades over a a line here or there and so there there had been two of those approved one of them um was on parway Lane the other one was on East n um there upcoming cases for you kind of to be aware of the Tennison Crossing which was approved and of course Wades knew and I don't know if you it was before my time if either one of you were on but I assume they were so Tennison Crossing was approved but uh subsequent to its approval and went all the way through um the detention Pond was in the wrong place it was on the wrong side of the property for the way that water flows and so they had to come back through redesign re-engineer redo everything and flip it and change it it's a town home subdivision um and so it went through uh all of its iterations I guess and so that is coming to you soon um there is a a new case on a specific use permit that you will see uh coming up in February that is uh it it was or is very interesting in that the it's on future development property and it is for a a

um agricultural equipment storage structure which would be a no-brainer on future development on a property right except for one thing he wants to put containers um shipping containers on either side there is a um design element for people just to use those as sides for a property coverings for agricultural mechanical kind of equipment tractors and such like that um which would again be a no-brainer for where it is on on on a property except for the fact that we have a code require that says you can't use them um and so um because except for uh the future development piece allows a special use to come forward and so that's why we're doing it so that he can build that property um basically it's it's storage for his implements so it'll be coming to you as that so um that's kind of an interesting way uh of looking at a slightly different case than you normally see but that's coming to you in February and and that's all I have thank you thank you very much um I haven't had a chance uh maybe I haven't been here at the right meeting but I want to welcome Wade Clark to uh Planning and Zoning Board I can assure you he'll be an asset everybody knows him uh his background uh speaks very highly of his abilities so welcome to the board Wade I appreciate that good to be here uh I guess that considers everything we have tonight uh I appreciate your work uh your

dedication uh and I promise to be better prepared next time it seems like we're seeing some of these properties and there's a change you know every time and I really need to know if we're lessening uh our restriction or our codes to accommodate or or what's the reasoning behind some of this and so I just need to know more myself so I will be visiting with you soon thank you very much and uh as U anybody got anything else okay I make a motion we adjourn second vote Yes I I