P&Z debates strip center, portable building request

During its regular Nov. 08, 2018 meeting, the Forney Planning & Zoning Commission met and in summary:

• Held Public Hearings -
  • Approved a request to rezone approximately 3 acres of land, located north of U.S. Highway 80 and east of Mustang Boulevard, from GR, General Retail District to C, Commercial District.
        Mr. Morgan stated this was to expand Platinum Collision. Property is bounded by commercial on 2 sides. Comprehensive Plan has no advice. Notice was published, no responses.
        There was no public input.
        Mr. Shimkus said is a no-brainer. Mr. Wilkins asked about outside storage - Mr. Morgan said that would be part of the site plan, and reminded the commission this would change the zoning for any future owner.
    
  • Took no action on a request to rezone property from AG, Agricultural District to GR, General Retail District. The property consists of approximately 3 acres located east of S. F.M. 548 and north of the Grayhawk Planned Development.
        Mr. Morgan said this was discussed at previous meeting, two residents spoke against this change. It was decided to pursue creating a PD, but later the applicant was not interested because don't want goto 5 acres. Applicant brought a site plan, which staff has not seen. Staff did not receive response from published notices.
        There was no public input.
        Mr. Thomas said previous meeting suggested applicant do a PD so city could have more control, across street at Wynne-Jackson also has plans. He asks if there would be a convenience store - applicant said no, just a strip center. Mr. Thomas pointed out applicant applied for alcohol permit, and published in Forney Messenger. Applicant said they have changed that plan. Mr. Wilcoxson asked Mr. Morgan if was anything to prevent owner from changing use later - no. Chmn. Thomas said if they approve, he has right to do whatever conforms to ordinances.
        No motion was made.
    
  • Approved amending the City of Forney Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to allow for alternative material requests in residential districts.
        Mr. Morgan explained non-conforming, which applies to many older homes, which don't meet masonry requirements. BoA may only approve 10% expansion. Adding masonry to most older homes isn't feasible, and would not fit into the area. Much of the proposed language is taken from the HOZ. A request would require public hearing. Several homeowners has expressed interest, including councilman KM who requested this action.
        There was no public input.
        Mr. Cunningham said there is an issue with BOA, HOZ, who would have final say? Mr. Morgan said HOZ overrides the other boards. Staff could add a line to clarify that.

• Approved a preliminary plat for Diamond Creek Estates Phase 3.
      Mr. Morgan said was considered in September; 37 acres 129 SF lots, with park dedication plus amenity center, which is important because has been added by developer. Park also important because will provide trail. Another part of trail was approved at last city council.
  
• Approved a revised site plan for RaceTrac Market, located at the northeast corner of F.M. 548 and F.M. 1641.
      Mr. Dixon stated original approved 2017, had 10 pumps, this has 8. Originally storm water was underground, this has it above ground.
      Mr. Shimkus asked if detention would be fenced - developer nodded yes. Mr. Wilcoxson asked about the pump reduction - Mr. Meltzer said this is the latest building design, which they feel is appropriate for this site.
  
• Approved a site plan for the Lakewood Trails amenity center, located northwest of the intersection of Dusk Drive and Dawn Drive in the City's ETJ.
      Chmn. Thomas asked if this was behind FHS. Mr. Dixon said yes, and the development agreement approved in 2014, final plat approved 2017, w/ 600 ft amenity center which is required during phase 1. Also provides a pool.
      Mr. Cunningham asked about the amenity center - if 600 ft was just the center? Yes. Mr. Shimkus asked if meets park requirements - yes.
  
• Approved a revised site plan for ALDI Food Store, located southwest of the intersection of Farm-to-Market Road 548 and Ridgecrest Road.
      Mr. Dixon said they will expand by 1816 sq ft, with 17 additional parking.
  
• Denied a site plan and a request to move buildings into Forney city limits in accordance with Section 3.05 of the Code of Ordinances.
      Mr. Morgan said this is a complex request, to allow portable buildings for Non-Profit use. Want to use 3 portable building 38ft long, 28 ft wide, 16 ft tall. Currently at Mesquite HS. Proposed Location is behind FISD Admin building. Intended use is for school uniform program, hunger relief ministry, and office for Sharing the Love (STL) foundation. Ordinance requires building to be inspected before moving - Mr. Shannon has done so. Staff notes buildings are not 90% masonry, so would be granting a variance if approve. Applicant requests being considered under "non-profit activity by a church" use. There is no parking on site, applicant has contacted FISD about shared parking, who has replied to the request in writing.
      Chmn. Thomas said complex is an understatement. He asked about the applicant; Mr. Morgan said the applicant is Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lewis said Forney Community Ministries is the applicant; he owns the property, but leases it to the ministry.
      Chmn. Thomas asked about 501c3 - they have applied, are working under Sharing the Love (STL) umbrella now. Chmn. Thomas asked if 501c3 will be church or Non-Profit; Mr. Lewis said they have several churches involved. Chmn. Thomas said the 501c3 will state Non-Profit, not church - correct. Chmn. Thomas said ordinance requires it to be a church. If Forney Comm. Ministries is not a church, won't apply to this ordinance. Mr. Lewis said activities are ministerial, there is a need for these services, it's important to not be labelled a church to work with secular organizations, so this is a gray line. Chmn. Thomas said if considered, for a reason, not a church, ordinance does have a definition that would work. Community center designation describes this better than church. Mr. Lewis said there will be one church that will have activities in these buildings, this is bigger than that definition - it's Christian based services, so in essence is a church. Chmn. Thomas said they have to go by the ordinance, which says non-profit activities by a church. If they approve this with vague definitions, what would preclude others from claiming to be churches. Mr. Ketteman said they don't claim to be a church, are non-profit w/ churches under their umbrella doing Christian activities. Chmn. Thomas expressed concerns about setting precedent. Mr. Ketteman asked what other members thought. Mr. Ketteman asked if was preference between the two definitions, if was difference in what allowed to do. Chmn. Thomas pointed out church is allowed in residential area, but community center is not.
      Mr. Lewis said a church is asking to use a building for their services. Chmn. Thomas said what they are trying to do is noble, but his perspective is they must follow guidelines, and another issue is: churches are not the applicant. Mr. Ketteman suggested another argument: Presbyterian and Methodist are involved, you can't separate those churches from Forney Comm. Ministries. He thinks they are splitting hairs. Chmn Thomas said both those churches have land that could house these buildings. Mr. Lewis asked how else you could describe churches working together? It's a church. Chmn. Thomas said when Mr. Ketteman does EDC work, he dots i's and crosses t's, with no ambiguities.
      Mr. Shimkus said the buildings are less than ideal, if they would have masonry added - Chmn. Thomas said that is another variance they are requesting. Mr. Ketteman passed out pictures from their architect, showing hardy plank use. Mr. Shimkus asked how old the buildings are, expressed concern if the organization dissolves, no one will take care of the buildings. Mr. Stevens said his biggest concern with the buildings was how they would be moved, they will need inspection once arrive. They will need foundation with tie-downs. Buildings have no structural defects. Lifespan: buildings probably 20 years old, if reskinned, upgrade electrical to meet ords... Mr. Wilcoxson asked what siding was - masonite. Mr. Wilcoxson said if gets wet, then it's useless. Mr. Stevens said the paint was not cheap, and caulking was good. Mr. Chambers asked how long ministry would be there - Mr. Lewis said no end date in mind. He said these are very solid structures, no wheels, as good as any house. Mr. Ketteman said they would love a new 4-story building, but will be here a long time. Ms. Holler asked if organizations moved out, these buildings would be on private property. Mr. Morgan said the zoning is single-family, a community center isn't allowed in SF, only church-related would be allowed. Mr. Lewis said these are only portable from MISD to here, then not moving. Ms. Holler said the question was if the organizations moved. Mr. Lewis said this is not just one ministry, churches and civic organization are adopting locations , he doesn't see this ending.
      Chmn. Thomas said another item for permits said house has not decreased by 1/2; does anyone kn0w what value was. Mr. Ketteman said Mesquite ISD put some up for bid, about 160 of then. Chmn. Thomas said need original cost and current value, if less than half, can't issue permit. Mr Stevens said have a/c unit, electrical, how much would an RV cost? Chmn. Thomas said they need to know they are quality units. Mr. Ketteman said would be a difficult issue; Chmn. Thomas said just ask MISD. Mr. Ketteman said that would not work, MISD had 3 bidders, they were there when bids open, they bid $500. A house mover bid 100 bought 50. They are worth way more. Another bid on restrooms which are 75k new, he got them for $1500. Chmn. Thomas said if don't ask, setting precedent, anything they do tonight sets a precedent. As Mr. Morgan stated, there are a lot of moving parts, and listed the many variances being requested. Mr. Ketteman said will likely see other ministry activities occur when they see what they are doing. He said is not appraiser, but would say it has not deteriorated 50%. Chmn. Thomas said would need a certified appraiser.
      Marion Stuart said she knows asking for several things out of spec, but she wants to touch on services they provide. They have been providing help since 2012, not going anywhere, they need a home. They work with under-served youth. They want to satisfy codes, but need a home. Churches are standing behind them. They will make sure the buildings are maintained. They want it to look nice and well landscaped.
      Mr. Wilcoxson asked if her entity used spaces in churches - when available. He asked what would prevent a church from being the legal applicant. Mr. Lewis said the problem is: what church combines those? Take Methodist and Presbytarian, they are two different religions, that's why they need non-profit. Mr. Cunningham said not talking about religion, but about helping people, so they should be able to come together for this reason. Has anyone asked them to take this on? Mr. Ketteman said he made their argument: churches are working together, as well as working w/ secular organizations, so they aren't duplicating services. Mr. Cunningham said one of them should step up - Mr. Ketteman said they did: they joined Forney Ministries.
      Mr. Cunningham asked Mr. Stevens if buildings are self contained - yes for electrical and hvac, but no restrooms or plumbing. Mr. Lewis said there was a house on the property that was torn down, so can provide water and sewer, they plan on building a bathroom facility.
      Mr. Wilcoxson asked what would prevent a church from leasing buildings to ministry for $1. Mr. Lewis said it is to prevent being labelled a particular religion, it is community. Wilcoxson said they want to be considered a church; Mr. Lewis said because there is no other governmental structure.
      Mr. Ketteman said they are not going to convince the commission, and asked for a motion. Mr. Wilcoxson said he works for a college dist w/ 7 colleges, who feel they are all different, but legally only the college district exists. A definition is a definition.
      Mr. Wilkins said knows why MISD getting rid of buildings so quickly, originally buildings would sell for more than MISD paid. New superintendent wanted to get rid of them all, so buyers got bargains. FCM says not a religious organization, but are a non-denominational entity, could apply online to get a license and city would then not be able to stop them. Mr. Lewis said but then he wouldn't have any integrity. Ms. Holler said she loves the ministry and what they do for community, her concern is the buildings themselves. Mr. Wilcoxson would like to see something worked out, he might be ok w/ buildings, but the classification is a problem. Mr. Cunningham said in his job he deals w/ these buildings, sees them used as schools and churches, 9 out of 10 when moved need repairs, it's not a big deal. In his job he has to cross a lot of i's & dot some t's - the way it's presented, it doesn't pass the test. Needs to be rearranged. He asked about the 501 - Mr. Lewis said as long as applied, can operate as Non-Profit. Mr. Cunningham said as Chmn. Thomas said, some things don't jibe, but can find a way to make it work. No doubt the service they provide is a need in community, what he sees now (paperwork) doesn't work for him.
      Chmn. Thomas said a lot is being asked of them - permit to move, variance on masonry, site plan w/ no parking, consider an org that is not under definition of church. All the actions approved tonight required conformance to ordinances. Emotionally, this is a great service. Some parts of this application have issues.
      Mr. Cunningham asked Mr. Lewis if he could see a way for the team to make refinements; Mr. Lewis said absolutely, if they have a road to run on. They are under a time constraint. Mr. Cunningham said if they could refine this, he moved to table item so they could rework it.
      Chmn. Thomas went through a schedule for various options - if they table it, won't hear it until next month. If they approve it then, council won't meet until January. Chmn. Thomas said if they approve it, permits could be issued, he believes. Mr. Morgan said they would still have to have a site plan approved, by council. Chmn. Thomas said if they deny tonight, could be appealed at next city council. Mr. Shimkus asked if they don't vote, would it go to council; Mr. Morgan said no. Mr. Morgan said applicant would prefer action that gets them to council quicker.
      Mr. Cunningham rescinded his motion. Chmn. Thomas moved to deny, Ms. Holler 2nd, affirmed 5-1 (Wilkins nay).
  
• Adjourned at 2017