Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 03/14/2018PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION March 14, 2018 PRESENT: Jerry Beaver Members Jack Browne • Lynda Cannedy Rick Graham • Blake Haney Krystal James, Vice -Chairperson • Steve Lane ♦ Alternate #, Rodney Martin, Chairperson • Travis Witt ♦ Altemate #2 Bobby Whiteley, Council Liaison • Mark Mc Burnett ♦ Ex-offiGo sAFB James McKechnie, Senior Assistant City Attorney ♦ Legal Dept. Paul Menzies, Assistant City Manager ♦ city staff Dana Schoening, Community Development Director • Bobby Teague, Community Development, Asst. Dir. / Bldg. Official Karen Gagn6, Planning Administrator • ABSENT: Anthony Inman • Cayce Wendeborn ° I. CALL_ TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson, Mr. Rodney Martin, at 2:03 p.m. Chairperson Martin proceeded to make the following comments: a. This meeting is being televised live on Channel 11. It will be replayed at 2:00 p.m. daily including Saturday and Sunday until the next live meeting is aired which will be the second Wednesday of next month at 2:00 p.m. b. Motions made by the Commission members include all staff recommendations and developmental requirements listed in the staff report. Any deviations will be discussed on a case -by -case basis and voted on accordingly. c. Applicants and citizens who wish to address the Commission or answer questions from the Commission members are asked to please speak into the P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 2 March 14, 2018 microphone at the podium. This meeting is being taped and there is no microphone to record statements made from the audience. d. Please silence all cell phones during the meeting. If it is necessary for you to have a cell phone conversation during the meeting, please use the hallway outside this room. Il. ROLL CALL Chairperson Martin roll called commission members and recognized SAFE -Ex- offico member and introduced Council liaison and City staff. Ill. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public. III, APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Krystal James introduced a motion to approve the February 14, 2018 minutes. Mr. Rick Graham seconded the motion. The minutes were approved. IV CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the consent agenda to be placed on the regular agenda. Ms. Krystal James made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Ms. Lynda Cannedy seconded the motion. Motion carried and consent agenda approved. V. REGULAR AGENDA Chairperson Martin stated that Temporary Storage Units (TSU) was a discussion item for an ordinance to regulate TSUs; and containing other provisions incidental and related to the purpose of the ordinance. There would be no action taken on this item. Staff was asked to present. Community Development Director, Dana Schoening shared and presented that this is a proposed ordinance and today the intent was to lay out the provisions and allow comments from the audience which might be affected from this proposed ordinance. Now, this has been in the works for a few years to address a trend that is growing in the residential community and on residential properties, excluding commercial. Currently, there is not an ordinance for TSU's. There is an ordinance for accessory buildings placed in the front yard however we have not been enforcing it. The TSU's on residential properties are being placed in the front yards, in the setback areas, in driveways and there is not a current ordinance for that. TSU's - which are placed in the front yard, setback areas. This proposed ordinance is to allow TSU's to be placed in the front and some specifics on how it may occur. We have not been enforcing the accessory building ordinance which TSU's would be treated as such. However we are trying to allow these units in residential front yards. P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 3 March 14 2018 Mr. Schoening listed details of the proposed provisions and regulations, permit requirements, extension of time, exceptions for this ordinance and asked the audience for comments. (See Sec. 46-320) Mr. Martin opened it up for comments from the public and/or Commission. Comments Received: 1. 1 don't see any language regarding any units that are already out there? It's a proposed ordinance; we have not enforced the code. Mr. Schoening will note this concern and have further discussion. 2. Won't there be a grace period before enforcement? Yes, there will be a grace period as well as education to the residential community. 3. Will there be anything in the future for commercial property? Right now, it's not deemed an issue. We are receiving complaints from the residential areas. 4. What if a residential resident can't use that piece of property but has commercial available? Mr. Schoening will take note of this issue. 5. How do you measure complaints? Don't have a specific number of complaints but when we receive them, we consider an ordinance. What are the benchmark cities? Didn't take a look at them; this is an increasing trend; Mr. Schoening researched the provisions paying close attention to the cohesiveness of the neighborhood and safety. 6. Statement was made that clarification is needed on the front yard setback in this proposed ordinance. Mr. Schoening confirmed. 7. Mr. Martin explained that this is a relatively new trend, PODS (TSU's) in front of homes for a year or more instead of a temporary storage area. 8. A 60 day period seems short? It appears we are pushing people to get permits? 9. Are we saying everyone has to get a permit if they have a POD even if it's just for a few days? Yes, unless it's on wheels. I don't think that's right. There need to be exceptions for military and civilians that use PODS in a short time frame. It appears we are causing a burden on the citizens of the city. Chairperson Martin offered maybe we could put in a provision that a permit required after 2 weeks. The Director agreed and will take a look at the issue. 10. Mr. Shelton, 1 St. James Terrace, representing Water AG Storage Containers, Inc., Iowa Park. Mr. Shelton agreed we should relax the regulation during natural disasters however there are personal disasters also to consider. He questioned needing a permit for this proposed ordinance while building or remodeling a home - it should be understood that if a permitted contractor is there, the owner should not need to get another permit to store their items. He volunteers with Habitat of Humanity but sees that this proposed ordinance does not support them, during the construction process, the container P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 4 March 14 2016 holds equipment and supplies usually near the curb and not in the driveway because the footprint of the home is small. 11. What is the average length of time for renting of PODs for individuals? Mr. Shelton noted they don't often do residential. It's a minor part of our business at Water AG Storage Container. 12. Bobby Teague commented building permits are good for 6 months and if an inspection occurs, the permit renews for another 6 months. Code enforcement will send a 10 day notice if someone needs to become compliant. 13. Mickey Fincannon, 408 4`h Street, Mi Box. Mr. Fincannon stated this proposed ordinance will put me out of business. This law in its current form will ruin "my business." Due to public outcry, he brought this business to the community and has spent 500K. Mickey passed out a letter in response to the first proposed ordinance. Mi Box is a corporate company; he stated based on his research the proposed ordinance is restrictive. Mickey stated he interfaced with the City and is surprised no one reached out to him until he received this proposed ordinance. He believes and "has been told" by several City employees this is targeting Mi Box. He agreed there should be a time limit for PODs; however 60 days is too short; especially for the do-it-yourself remodeler. He does not agree this has anything to do with public safety. There is a difference between moving and storage of units. He believes this is a punishing proposed ordinance and an overreach of city government. It's a personal decision for someone to place a storage unit in their driveway. Chairperson Martin requested a clarification from Mr. Teague who responded that in the current ordinance accessory buildings are not allowed in the front setbacks. Yes, the ordinance was initiated because of Mi Box but not to hinder Mr. Fincannon's business but to support it. Mr. Fincannon reminded commission members and staff that every company that brings in a crate, they will need a permit. On the Air Force Base many crates are delivered. His personal opinion is that there should not be a city ordinance on this issue. Chairperson Martin replied that we need to review this as well as keeping businesses here while we keep our city uncluttered. Mr. Fincannon thinks this is overregulation. Mr. Martin explained that the planning & zoning board does not pass ordinances, the City Council does. However, the commission attempts to work out the kinks before ordinances are presented to the city councilors for their review and consideration. 14. No fee has been set; they have been considering $25 for the duration of the term. Chairperson Martin closed public discussion and requested that the proposed ordinance be reviewed later once it had been cleaned up to address items discussed during the public forum. P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 5 March 14, 2018 1. Case C 18-07 Request to Allow a 17 ft. Reduction in the Required Interior Side Setback for an Accessory Structure in a General Commercial (GC) Zoning District. This request is for 5 Meadow Green Court Ms. Krystal James made a motion to approve. Ms. Lynda Cannedy seconded. Ms. Montgomery -Gagne presented the case to allow a 17 ft. reduction in the required interior side setback for an accessory structure in General Commercial (GC) zoning at 5 Meadow Court (Bridge Creek Addition). This case was pulled from last month's schedule due to the fact the owner requested an additional setback, which is 5 ft and 6 inches. Mr. Justin Leach, the applicant, is not in attendance however his representatives Mr. Doug McCullough and Mr. Billy Hughes can answer any questions that may arise. No additional responses were received from the second notification; in the first notification we received 2 in favor and 1 in opposition for this conditional use application. Staff recommended approval of the reduction in the setback for an accessory structure at 5 Meadow Court, abiding within all code and building regulations. The motion was taken to a vote and carried unanimously. 2. Case C 18-08 Request to allow a commercial day care center in a Limited Commercial (LC) zoning district at 212 Valley View Road Ms. Krystal James made a motion to approve. Ms. Lynda Cannedy seconded. Ms. Montgomery -Gagne presented the case to allow a commercial daycare over 1,200 sq ft in a Limited Commercial (LC) zoning district. The commission previously approved rezoning the 5.66 acres tract from Limited Office (LO) to Limited Commercial (LC) at the February 2018 meeting. The applicants, Morns and Misty Stone, were proposing to rezone the property (pending council review/approval), then apply for the conditional use to convert the existing structure, a former doctor's office, to a commercial daycare. The building has a gross floor area of 3,021 sq ft thus exceeding the 1,200 sq ft cap for a business in an LC zone by 1,821sq ft unless a conditional use is obtained. The applicants have already re -platted the property. There were no responses received from the notification mailing. Staff has recommended approval of the conditional use rezone at 212 Valley View Road. Chairperson Martin asked if the applicant was in attendance and wished to speak, and they did not want to speak. Chairperson Martin asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak, and there were none. The motion was taken to a vote and carried unanimously. P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 6 MarCh 14, 2018 3. Case C 18-09 Request to allow a limited multifamily use in a Single -Family 2 Residential (SF-2) zoning district at 5118 Lake Shore Drive Ms. Krystal James made a motion to approve. Ms. Lynda Cannedy seconded Ms. Montgomery -Gagne presented the case noting the applicants, Mr. Thurman and Ms. Lyne, submitted a proposal to redevelop a vacant lot at 5118 Lake Shore Dr. They are proposing 6 duplex structures consisting of 12 dwelling units for senior living. Twelve parcels were notified and there were 7 responses in opposition. Concerns ranged from existing road being too narrow, density, height of buildings, promise from an adjacent developer that vacant land would not be developed, and decrease in property value. Staff reviewed the proposal and assessed that the area had multiple varied uses within this section of the city and along Lake Shore drive. Staff supported the proposal however there were conditions such as platting, buffering, screening, egress, landscaping as well as lighting and privacy fence items addressed in the report. Mr. Ken Thurman and Barbara Lyne presented their case as an affordable but not cheap housing. It's fitting a need in a niche market. They are not trying to decrease the value but increase the value of the property. David and Nancy Craft, 6 South Fork, they have lived there for about 18 months and were told by their builder that the vacant land behind them would remain vacant. He installed a chain link fence and has concerns for disturbance of habitat for wildlife. His home will be affected by this project and it's going to cost a lot to replace the chain link fence with a privacy fence. Doug Halfhill, 6105 Lake Shore Drive, 5111 Lake Shore Drive stated that the drainage in the area is poor. They never installed curbs and gutter and when it rains it comes over to our property from the South Fork area. The ditch is too small. Flooding occurs in the streets and Franks Boat Storage. Chairman Martin stated the developer would have to retain water and the city would need to repair any potholes on Lake Shore Drive. Mr. Halfhill's response was the city always gives you the runaround. Janet Blocker, 5105 Lake Shore Drive, replied that she's tired of getting the runaround. If this is the zoning committee and they approve this, you can expect an appeal. "I have paid my taxes" and raised my children" and I want it to be single family. The lake is beautiful and quiet. I will gather my neighbors together and we will appeal. We will fight it. She charged that the city needs to get their infrastructure fixed before they invite the entire country to live here. Chairperson Martin closed public discussion and opened it to the commission Mr. Jerry Beaver expressed concern that this case is putting the cart before the horse. Infrastructure is not in place to support more units, road is narrow, walking and cyclist area. Need to get the infrastructure straight before developing. Chairman Martin stated the developer absorbs the costs of infrastructure development if it is not adequate for the needs/upgrading development. P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 7 March 14, 2018 Ms. Linda Cannedy asked if there is coordination between the Lake Wichita Revitalization Committee and this project? It appears there would be a comprehensive look at this since they are connected. Ms. Montgomery -Gagne said the widening of the road is a major project and that coordination had not been looked at by Planning but was being considered by TransportationfMPQ. Mr. Rick Graham stated that he believed in private property rights but the area appeared to be mixed with older warehousing and some residential. He noted the density could be same if zero -lot line single family homes were developed which wouldn't require the conditional use process. Chairperson Martin asked for further discussion. A commission member inquired as to what inquires Mr. Thurman made with City of Wichita Falls Engineering. Mr. Thurman replied they have not moved forward much until the project received zoning authorization. Mr. Thurman confirmed that if it's cost prohibitive, it will have a bearing on their decision. Chairperson Martin interjected the P & Z commission's purpose. The motion was taken to a vote. The motion carried. There were eight votes affirmatively and one vote in opposition. 4. Public Hearing - Case R 18-03 Concerning the rezoning of 3.72 acres of land from Single -Family 2 Residential (SF-2) to General Commercial (GC) and amend the LaVd Use Plan to change the area from institutional to Commercial at 1912 1 It Street (3.13 acres) & 0.58 acres on Denver Street Chairperson Martin recused Mr. Rick Graham from this case. Mr. Graham has signed the conflict of interest paperwork which is filed in the City Clerk's office. Mr. Martin called the public hearing opened at 4 p.m. There were no comments from the public. The public hearing declared closed at 4:01 p.m. Case R 18-03 Request to rezone 3.72 acres from Single -Family 2 Residential (SF-2) to General Commercial (GC) and amend the Land Use Plan to change the area from Institutional to Commercial. 1912 11th Street (3.13 acres) & 0.58 acres on Denver Street Ms. Krystai James made a motion to approve. Ms. Lynda Cannedy seconded. Ms. Montgomery -Gagne presented the case. The application was brought by Rick Graham. The property, former Alamo Elementary was closed by WFISD and soli to Mr. Graham in 2017. However, the new gymnasium was retained by WFISD. WFISD Executive Facilities Director, Brady Woolsey, agreed as well as Mr. Graham to include their small parcel in the request to rezone to General Commercial (GC). This ordinance is addressing the zoning of this parcel since it has a split zoning, SF-2 and GC. At this time, the school property is referenced P S Z COMMISSION PAGE 8 March 14.2018 and 0.58 on Denver Street since it does not have a speck address therefore 2 properties are involved in this rezoning. Forty three property owners were notified. We received favorable responses from three, none were unopposed and two were undecided. The school which was closed in 2014 is being proposed to be converted to 42 upscale apartments. Along with this request to rezone, the land use plan will be amended from institutional to commercial if the proposed zoning is approved which will provide consistency within the city's zoning comprehensive plan. Mr. Rick Graham spoke that this is a very nice property and is over 100 years old, per the building's cornerstone. They will not use much from the infrastructure, except walls, they have already stripped it and have given tours. This is the first time this property is on the tax rolls. They plan to target the closest employer for residents, the hospital. This is a great reuse of the school. Chairperson Martin opened the motion to discussion. Ms. Krystal James commented and complimented Mr. Graham for reuse of this older building which also will help stabilize the neighborhood. Motion for discussion was closed. The motion was taken to a vote and carried unanimously. S. Case TA 18-01 An ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Appendix B: Zoning, Section 3000 - Zoning District Types and Regulations, specifically Section 3640. PUD — Planned Unit Development District (General) and Section 3680. — Approval Criteria to allow for Planned Unit Developments (PUD) to be less than five (5) acres. Ms. Krystal James made a motion to approve. Ms. Lynda Cannedy seconded Staff presented the case noting within the City of Wichita Falls, there are five planned unit development LPUD) areas: Morningside Park Addition (project never completed), Canyon rails, Vitek Industrial Park which is industrial in nature (Southwest Parkway), Nob Hill - Missile Road & Castle and Kemp's West End/Bluebonnet Hill. The PUD option has not been used frequently. It's a master planned unique development; not all developers take advantage of this because of the fact the ordinance prescribes in detail what occurs in the developing of the property. Our city requires a minimum of five acres for a PUD. Most comparable cities ranged from either no minimum to 10 acres as a minimum for a PUD. Even though we benchmarked with other cities and the recent trends of tiny homes, which is a potential ordinance we are considering; staff supports this proposed ordinance of reducing the acreage by 2 acres to having a 3-acre minimum but keeping in mind all other site criteria, requirements and sustainability for the development as a future developer is wanting to create a unique residential and wellness facility for veterans. Chairperson Martin opened the motion to discussion. Ms. Cannedy asked about consideration of 2 acres however the staff believed it important having a minimum acreage for PUDs to ensure it addressed basic site amenities such as easements for utilities, buffering for potentially increased density, sufficient parking on -site, access for sanitation vehicles, etc. even with a unique development proposal it must be able to function in reality. P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 9 March 14, 2018 The motion was taken to a vote and carried unanimously. VI. OTHER BUSINESS 1. City Council Updates There was none reported. VII. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 4:23 p.m. cm Rodney Martin, Chairperson Date ATTEST' Dana Schoening, Dept. of Community Development Date