P&Z approves Deen Implement, Overland Grove

During its regular Mar. 01, 2018 meeting, the Forney Planning & Zoning Commission met and in summary:

• Held Public Hearings re:-
  
  • Did not consider an Ordinance rezoning 69.08 acres of property from SF-15 Single-Family Residential and AG Agricultural to PD Planned Development with base zoning districts of SF-15 Single-Family Residential and C Commercial. The property is located north of W. U.S. Highway 80 and east of Lovers Lane.
       Mr. Morgan notified the commission the request had been withdrawn earlier today.
    
  • Approved replat of Forney Professional Center, located south of the Union Pacific Railroad and west of Farm-to-Market Road 548.
       Mr. Dixon briefed the commission.
       There was no public input.
       Ms. Lemons asked about additional entrances - Mr. Dixon said it's up to TxDOT. Mr. Carr said the entrances would be too close?
    
  • Approved an Ordinance for a Conditional Use Permit for Heavy Machinery Sales and Storage to be an approved use to operate at 703 W. Broad Street.
       Mr. Morgan said this is a large expansion, they are requesting alternative materials - usually require 90% masonry, the request is 23%. Applicant wishes to escrow funds for the sidewalk. Notice was provided, there were no responses. Staff recommends approval w/ stipulation to add sidewalk.
       There was no public input.
       Mr. Cunningham asked for clarification, what the rest of exterior would be - Mr. Martin from Bannister Engineering said it is a pre-engineered metal fabric, and this has been selected as a flagship design by Kubota, will be used at other locations. Mr. Carr said there are no sidewalks bc they haven't required sidewalks. He questioned the low use of masonry, and the use of wood. He asked about the standing-seam roof - that will be the predominant roof. Applicant said it has been under design for 6 months. Mr. Carr said this is the most important frontage in the city, don't want metal buildings along the highway. Ms. Lemons asked about the garage doors, if there was stone - yes. She said this is better than current building. Mr. Brothers asks why the wall isn't taller so people wont see the metal buildings; Mr. Martin said it's a rustic look they are going far. Mr. Bowen asked why staff recommends approval for low masonry - Mr. Morgan said they were in favor of the design, they had several design meetings, variety of architecture is a goal in comprehensive plan. Mr. Wilkins asked if the masonry will be based on the plans, or just the percentages, not like the fence company where it didn't get built as shown. Mr. Carr said he would be in favor, but is disappointed by the front appearance, they walked in here knowing this could get denied. He was concerned about setting a precedent. Mr. Brothers said the front probably exceeds 23%, this construction makes sense for the items they're selling. Mr. Bowen agreed it is appropriate for items being sold. Mr. Carr said he would vote for if they would get the visible front mostly masonry. Mr. Thatcher said they would have to make the conditions very clear, then council can approved based on those conditions.
        Commission moved to approve with requiring sidewalk, and front of building be 80% masonry, and non-wood materials. Mr. Martin said they could use faux-wood product, as Panda Express used. Mr. Thatcher reiterated the motion for clarification.

• Approved a preliminary plat for Deen Implement Addition, located at 703 W. Broad Street.
     Mr. Morgan said this was to set boundaries.
  
• Approved a site plan for Deen Implement, with stipulations as given on CUP.
  
• Approved a revised site plan for Forney Senior Living (Three Forks), located at 335 S. F.M. 548.
      Mr. Morgan said the rear of the building has room for expansion, this request is to add 2 more wings, 22 new beds, there will be a lot more landscaping added, more than required. Chmn. Wilcoxson asked if this was a special unit - applicant said it is just more assisted living.
  
• Approved (Ms. Lemons nay) a preliminary plat for Trinity Crossing, a residential subdivision located west of F.M. 460 and south of F.M. 740 in the Forney ETJ.
      Mr. Dixon briefed the commission, stating the property need not comply with zoning, but does have to comply with subdivision ordinance. TxDOT approved Impact Analysis in March. This is adjacent to Forney Ranch. Property has 215 lots with two indirect connections to 460. If this were in the city, they would not recommend approval.
     Ms. Lemons asked if there was a development agreement - no. She expressed concerns about overloading the schools, need to pass an ordinance requesting FISD approval of new plans. Mr. Carr talked about not having 22 acres of park land for this. Mr. Thatcher said the ETJ has no zoning, only looking at building standards, could have development agreement through a PID or MUD, (this is part of Kaufman MUD 5), but as long as this meets building standards, must approve.
     Mr. Brothers asks if subdivision ordinance could be changed - Mr. Thatcher said this MUD was probably in place many years ago. Ms. Lemons asked if there really was nothing they could do about it - Mr. Thatcher said sometimes the groundwork was laid 10 years ago. As far as adopting an ordinance that would require any new development be approved by the city, he would caution movement in that area, due to vested property rights. In this case, it is an administerial duty, they should approve it.
     Mr. Brothers asked about traffic study, and homes are so close kids will be in the street. Chmn. Wilcoxson asked if the board could only consider if it meets subdivision ordinance - Mr. Thatcher said yes. Mr. Cunningham said staff has stated it meets the ordinance. Mr. Bowen thanked Mr. Thatcher for clarifying, so the public knows. Chmn. Wilcoxson said what bothers the board is approving the motion doesn't tell the whole story, asks if they can move to agree the applicant meets the requirements without endorsing the project. Mr. Thatcher said as long as the result it whether they approve it or not.
  
• Approved a final plat for Overland Grove Phase 1, a residential subdivision located west of Walnut Lane (F.M. 548) and east of S. Bois D'Arc Street (F.M. 740).
     Mr. Dixon briefed the commission on the 109 acres, 327 lots, 15 open space lots, has some of each size lot 6k, 7.2k, 9.1k. They will pay fees for every lot in lieu of park dedication. Mr. Brothers asked about the amenity center - representative Mr. Murphy said it will be more than 3,000 sq ft building, which is just part of the center. Chmn. Wilcoxson asked if that is air-conditioned space - still under discussion. Mr. Wilkins asked when it will be built - it must be built before the 30th permit issued.
     Mr. Cunningham asked how many phases - 5 or 6, based on the market. Ms. Lemons asked if set aside land for the school - they have been speaking with the isd, draft agreement gives the district options. Mr. Carr asked if there was just one exit - one on 548, and one on Pecan. Mr. Carr recalled the Pecan connection was not desired - Mr. Murphy said it is in compliance with the preliminary plat that was approved.
     A grove of trees on 548 will be preserved. There will also be open spaces. Mr. Carr said gradually becoming obvious at some point will be no more park land, should consider not taking money instead. As this is a larger subdivision, be nice if they could work in a public facility. Mr. Murphy said the always include open space in their design, city requested they also provide fees. He believes they will provide double the normal requirement. Mr. Brothers asked if they were exceeding the requirements - Mr. Morgan said yes, if you combined their open space. Mr. Thatcher said is a difference between park land (maintained by city) and open space, which is internal to the subdivision and maintained by the HOA.
  
• Adjourned at 1944