Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shirley Farms topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners table Shirley Farms amendment after debate over cementitious facades and fencing
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission heard staff and developer arguments to allow cementitious fiberboard as an accepted 'masonry' façade and to relax certain fence restrictions in Shirley Farms but voted to table the amendment pending more information and staff follow‑up.
The City of Anna Planning and Zoning Commission on Aug. 3 heard a proposal to amend the Shirley Farms planned development to clarify facade materials, amend fencing rules and set an amenity‑center deadline, then voted to table the item for additional information.
Planner staff told the commission the amendment would not change approved land uses but would "allow for cementitious fiber board as an approved masonry facade," and said the amenity center "will be completed with the 250th building permit, and completed within 24 months." The change would also permit so‑called "open" fencing on certain reverse corner lots so residents could see through fences to improve sightlines for driveways.
Developer representative Justin Craig of the Telus Group said the proposed amendment is intended to address implementation issues for two architectural styles and "we're not suggesting that we're gonna go out and construct a 100% cementitious on all these products." He told commissioners the development agreement still contains robust architectural requirements and that the elevations presented in the packet show the intended quality.
Neighbors and commissioners raised aesthetic and durability concerns. Larry Bennett, who lives adjacent to the Telus property, said he expected Shirley Farms to be "higher end" and questioned product longevity: "If you cut it in 0.5 and stick it in a bucket of water, it'll swell over time." Staff responded that building codes and product formulations have changed in the last two decades and that many cementitious products are classified and perform more like masonry than older alternatives.
Commissioners asked whether the 24‑month amenity deadline carried an explicit penalty; staff said typical enforcement in similar agreements is withholding further building permits but did not read a specific penalty clause into the record. Commissioners also sought clarification on who would track masonry‑percentage caps and anti‑monotony requirements; staff said newer planning personnel will coordinate with permitting to track compliance.
After questions and public comment, a commissioner moved to table the Shirley Farms amendment to the next meeting to allow staff and the applicant to provide additional information; the motion, seconded and put to vote, carried.
