Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 05/09/2018MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Tryl-IFTIM Jerry Beaver ♦ Members Jack Browne Lynda Cannedy David Cook *Alternate #2 Blake Haney Krystal James, Vice -Chairperson Steve Lane ♦ Alternate #1 Rodney Martin, Chairperson Cayce Wendebom James McKechnie, Senior Assistant City Attorney * Legal Dept, Paul Menzies, Assistant City Manager * City Staff Dana Schoening, Community Development Director + Karen Gagn6, Planning Administrator + Fabian Medellin, Planner 11 + Rita Miller, Housing & Code Administrator ABSENT: Rick Graham Anthony Inman The meeting was called to order by Chairperson, Mr. Rodney Martin, at 2:01 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 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 Planning and Zoning 2 May 9, 2018 Ill. ROLL CALL Chairperson Martin roll called commission members, welcomed David Cook as an alternate member to the commission and introduced the city staff. Ill. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Krystal James introduced a motion to approve the April 11, 2018 minutes. Ms. Lynda Cannedy seconded the motion. The minutes were approved. V. 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. Cayce Wendeborn seconded the motion. Motion carried and consent agenda approved. 1. Case C 18-12 Request for a conditional use to allow a carport in the required front setback in a Single•Family 2 Residential (SF•2) zoning district at 3019 Moffett Avenue. Ms. Cayce Wendeborn made a motion to approve. Ms. Krystal James seconded. Mr. Fabian Medellin presented the case. The property owner, Joe Kaufhold, sought approval of a carport to be constructed in the front setback of his property to the specifications provided. The carport will have a total of 4 posts, post height of 8 feet, a ridgeline of 9 feet which will be less than the height of the primary structure, no walls, and setbacks of 5 feet to the interior side and 2 feet to the front property line. The proposed carport meets the carport standards outlined in Sec. 4220 (Zoning Ordinance). The proposed carport would conform to the surrounding neighborhood as there are a total of 7 carports, with 400 feet. If granted approval, the carport must comply with all other building standards and permitting. Staff notified 36 parcel owners; 5 responded in favor, 1 responded in opposition, and 1 responded with no opinion/undecided. Staff recommended approval of this Conditional Use carport request for 3019 Moffett Avenue with further site plan review by Planning and Building inspections at the time of permitting for construction to verify conformance with Sec. 4220 and all other applicable code and ordinances. There were no comments from the audience or commission. The motion was taken to a vote and carried unanimously. Planning and Zoning 3 May 9, 2018 2. Case C 18-13 Request for a conditional use to allow a manufactured home in a Single - Family 2 Residential (SF-2) zoning district at 1205 37 1h Street. Ms. Cayce Wendeborn made a motion to approve. Ms. Krystal James seconded. Mr. Fabian Medellin presented the case. The property owners, Larry and Nona Hildreth, have submitted an application for approval for the placement of a new manufactured home as in -fill development in a Single Family 2 (SF-2) zoning district. Due to the age and deterioration of the current manufactured home on the property the owners would like to replace the existing manufactured home with a new model. A recent incident in the home's kitchen has left a large hole in the floor that was temporarily repaired until the Planning and Zoning Commission could review the conditional use application. The owners would like to purchase and install a new manufactured home versus making individual repairs to their existing home. The owners are proposing the placement of the manufactured home to meet setback standards of any new residence. The guideline for the home orientation states that it is to be placed with the entry facing the public right of way. The ordinance does allow for placement of the home to face the side property lines if in a neighborhood with others of similar placement. Of the seven (7) manufactured homes in the immediate vicinity, three (3) of them are placed with the main entry facing the interior side property lines. The Hildreth's are proposing to place the home on the lot with the entry oriented to the side property line. The proposed home is comparable to the surrounding properties both in size and placement on the lot. Staff notified 20 parcel owners; 5 responded in favor, 2 responded in opposition, and 0 responded with no opinion/undecided. Staff recommends j@pproval of this Conditional Use for a manufactured home request for 1205 37"' Street with further site plan review by Planning and Building inspections at the time of permitting for construction to verify conformance with Sec. 5615 (Manufactured Homes as In -Fill Development) and all other applicable development and building code. Mr. Martin opened the discussion to the public. Larry and Nona Hildreth were present but did not have any comments or presentations for the commission. The Chairperson closed the discussion to the public and opened it to the commission. Mr. Martin commented he was "on board" and "sees it as an upgrade". There were no other comments from the commission. The comment section was closed and Mr. Martin called for a vote. The motion was taken to a vote and carried unanimously. 3. Case C 18-14 Request for a conditional use to allow a carport in the required front setback in a Single -Family 2 Residential (SF-2) zoning district at 3024 Moffett Avenue Ms. Krystal James made a motion to approve. Ms. Cayce Wendeborn seconded. Planning and Zoning 4 May 9, 2018 Mr. Medellin presented the case. The property is located near the intersection of McNeil and Southwest Parkway. The property owner, Kenneth Wellman submitted an application for approval of a carport to be constructed in the front setback of his property to the specifications provided. The carport will have a total of 4 posts, post height of 8 feet, an overall height that will be less than the primary structure height, no walls, and setbacks of 4 feet 10 inches to the interior side and 8 feet 10 inches to the front property line. The proposed carport meets the carport standards outlined in Sec. 4220. The proposed carport would fit with the surrounding properties as there are a total of eight (8) within the nearby vicinity of the home. If granted approval of the carport must comply with all other building standards and permitting. There were 36 properties notified. Five (5) were in favor; one (1) was undecided. There were eight (8) carports in the nearby vicinity. Staff recommends approval of this Conditional Use carport request for 3024 Moffett Avenue with further site plan review by Planning and Building inspections at the time of permitting for construction to verify conformance with Sec. 4220 and all other applicable codes and ordinances. Mr. Martin asked the applicant, Mr. Wellman, who was in the audience if he wanted to speak; he asked for comments from the public. There were no comments. He proceeded to open the discussion for comment to the commission, no comments were forthcoming. Mr. Martin called for the vote. The vote carried unanimously. 4. Case C 18-15 Request for a conditional use to allow a carport in the required front setback in a Single -Family 2 Residential (SF-2) zoning district at 6003 Kingston Drive. Ms. Cayce Wendeborn made a motion to approve. Ms. Krystal James seconded. Mr. Fabian Medellin presented the case to the commission. The property owners, Jack and Phyllis Spence, submitted an application for approval of a carport to be constructed in the front setback of their property to the specifications provided. The location of the home is in the southwestern section of Wichita Falls. The carport will have a total of 4 posts, post height and overall height of 8 feet, no walls, and setbacks of 7.4 feet to the interior side and 7.5 feet to the front property lines. The proposed carport meets the carport standards outlined in Sec. 4220. If granted approval of the carport must comply with all other building standards and permitting. There were total 13 property notifications. One (1) was is favor and one (1) was undecided. There were four (4) carports in the nearby vicinity. Staff recommends approval of this Conditional Use carport request for 5003 Kingston Drive with further site plan review by Planning and Building inspections at the time of permitting for construction to verify conformance with Sec. 4220 and all other applicable codes and ordinances. The applicant was in the audience but did not wish to speak and there were not any comments from the public. The case was closed for discussion by the Nanning and Zoning 5 May • 201 public and opened to the commission. There were no comments from the commission either. The Chairperson noted that "everyone was pretty quiet today". He closed the discussion to the commission and called for the vote. The vote carried unanimously. 5. Case C 18-16 Request for a conditional use to allow a contractor's yard in a Residential Mixed Use (RMU) zoning district at 1409 33rd Street. Ms. Cayce Wendeborn made a motion to approve. Ms. Krystal James seconded. The property owner, Everardo Martinez, came into city hall seeking to pull a permit for a new curb cut for the property. He outlined his plans to use the property as a contractor's yard, and at which time he was informed that prior approval from Planning and Zoning Commission was needed to allow for the change of use. The property is located near the Jacksboro Hwy/33'd Street intersection, eastern -central section of the city. Mr. Martinez plans on storing his construction equipment including vehicles, cement mixer, and lift at the site. He then complied and has submitted an application to the Planning office, and if approved will proceed with permitting for the curb cut and begin operating from the location. There is only one residential property in that block; all other lots are being used in a commercial capacity such as warehouse, auto repair shop, or contractor's yard. There were 27 property notifications. Three were in favor and none responded in opposition or no opinion. Staff recommended approval of this request to allow a contractor's yard in a Residential Mixed Use (RMU) zoning district with the conditions such as fencing, gating, screening of any outdoor storage; must be on an improved surface (gravel considered for contractor's yard), site plan reviews, etc. Owner must obtain necessary permits in accordance with city ordinances and adopted building code provisions. Mr. Martin asked the applicant, Mr. Martinez if he wanted to make any comments. He did not wish to speak. Mr. Martin opened the discussion to the commission. Chairperson Martin stated this was a good use of the land; Ms. Cayce Wendeborn and Ms. Krystal James agreed with his comment. There were no other comments. Mr. Martin called for the vote. The vote carried unanimously. 6. Temporary Storage Units Discussion of an ordinance to regulate Temporary Storage Units; (Code of Ordinances: Chapter 46- Environment) and containing other provisions incidental and related to the purpose of this ordinance. Chairperson Martin stated that this was a discussion item instead of an action item regarding temporary storage units. He asked Mr. Dana Schoening, Community Development Director, to begin the discussion. Mr. Dana Schoening acknowledged the commission members and stated the purpose of the discussion. He thanked the commission for their previous input Planning and Zoning 6 May 9, 2018 and gave a summary of the endpoint vision for this proposed ordinance. He stated this proposed ordinancip for temporary storage was placed on the agenda of the City Council on April 3`0. The Council pulled the item and have requested or would like for the Planning and Zoning Commission to give it an official recommendation. Mr. Schoening stated that today's intent is to have some feedback, further discussion and a sense from the Planning and Zoning commission on this proposal as well as share the provisions. Today, he is not requesting an official recommendation but would like to have this item as an official recommendation in June; the next Planning and Zoning commission meeting. He hinted that this item is already scheduled for their upcoming meeting. He stressed that the City Council would like to have the commission's official recommendation. Mr. Schoening directed the commission members to look at the proposed draft ordinance and packet previously handed out to review terminology of temporary storage unit (TSU). These TSU's are a box usually located in the front yard of residential properties. Mr. Schoening pointed out that the most important word is "temporary". A temporary storage means transportable units designed and used primarily for temporary storage of building materials, household goods, and personal items for use on a limited basis on a property. This definition does not include those portable units used in the removal of municipal solid waste (dumpsters) or licensed vehicle. Mr. Schoening stated currently our city doesn't have any provision for TSU's. Staff was asked and has diligently researched and drafted this ordinance to be a benefit to the city and neighborhoods not a hindrance. The intent of this proposed ordinance is to provide for TSU's in our city. Citizen complaints have occurred and TSU's are a growing trend not only in our city but in the nation and we have seen an increase of TSU's in Wichita Falls. The proposed ordinance addresses two primary areas: public safety and neighborhood aesthetic considerations. Residential zoning districts are sacred. Even though the zoning is very restrictive in residential areas, it is the most sacred. There is a lot of private investment in residential properties. The intent is to provide TSU's on residential properties only, excluding commercial properties. The key provisions proposed are: • Temporary storage unit regulated on residential properties only; • Permit required for placement of a temporary storage unit; • Not more than one temporary storage unit per residential property may be permitted; • One temporary storage unit may be permitted per dwelling per multi -family residential property; • Temporary storage unit located only on a lot with primary residential structure; • Temporary storage unit not located in any part of a fire lane, maneuvering lane, public right-of-way, public sidewalk, or visibility triangle; • Temporary storage unit not placed for longer than 60 days in a 365-day period. A fifteen -day extension may be provided by the building official in extenuating circumstances; • Temporary storage unit allowed on property for duration of a building permit; • No temporary storage unit must not exceed a 160-square feet footprint nor have a height greater than 9.5 feet; • Temporary storage unit shall be placed on driveway surface or area recognized as driveway surface; • Ordinance requirements may be waived by building official in the event of a declaration of natural disaster by City Council. Planning and Zoning 7 May 9, 2018 In closing, Director Schoening summarized the step by step process of the ordinance formation as well as how feedback, accommodations and adaptations were addressed inside the proposed, draft ordinance. Many of the concerns previously voiced were addressed but Mr. Schoening would like to move forward and receive more feedback however there are some situations he needs more insight help to resolve such as U-PAK, personal disasters, some military moves seven days or less and he is open for comments, ideas, and guidance. Mr. Martin asked if a typical move is seven days or so, is it possible that the company or applicant placing the TSU could have a mail -in notification once they send out a container? Then after the notification period has expired the city could begin the permit process? The city could then track. Mr. Schoening responded that anything is possible, It's based on the honor system. It may be difficult to track but it can be considered. Mr. Martin responded all of the permitting is under the honor system until they get caught. Ms. Lynda Cannedy asked if I am moving into Wichita Falls, how would I know I needed to get a permit? Mr. Martin stated the companies should know this is a requirement. Notify the corporate and they should notify their branches. Mr. Schoening answered we have our website and other normal channels. There are a myriad of ways to communicate however he is not aware of the ones used. Word of mouth is still used. Staff stated that usually the businesses involved become aware of the permits required. Mickey Fincannon, owner MiBox, said the key point is whether for temporary storage or moving. His work orders notate whether it is for: moving, warehouse or storage. State of Texas charges tax on storage but not for moving containers. A resident should be able to have storage under 30 days for a move and pay permit fee if longer. For storage, have for no less than 120 days but could have extensions. Ms. James wants flexibility for the residents. Mr. Martin stated that a sliding scale with fees should be based on time frame on property. We need to set a date where temporary storage becomes permanent storage. Mr. Fincannon stated the ordinance is primarily designed for front yard storage. Mr. Beaver said very erroneous information is floating around in the community. Mr. Fincannon wants it clarified in the ordinance as front yard storage. Any buildings in the back yard need building permits. Monthly price for MiBox is $129 month plus $50 delivery fee and $25 permit fee. All companies will have to pay fees or find alternatives. The moving issue is for large homes, he has previously had to use 3 boxes (16x8 boxes) for a 3 bedroom home. Another issue is that they can't put storage units on grass. Residents can't park cars on grass; it is a similar issue. Mr. Beaver asked how many complaints have we received? Ms. Miller said it wasn't tracked; at that time and currently there is no ordinance addressing the temporary boxes; complaints holding since July 2017. They looked at other ordinances to see how it may fit. Mr. Schoening said that this trend will continue. We want an ordinance in place to address issues before it becomes a bigger problem. Ms. James would like to see people use trend and then track it. She has a concern with being too restrictive upfront. Mr. Fincannon liked Ms. James' comment on no permit on moving units with no paperwork. Mr. Martin said 90 days was good with a 30 day extension; pay fee for extension of 60 days. There is no hardship with companies filling -in paperwork to notate whether moving vs. Planning and Zoning 8 May 9, 2018 storage. The City of Wichita Falls can't determine moving vs storage; they are treated the same. The MiBox delivery truck can only hold I unit per truck. To move multiple boxes on the same load they would require a special hauling truck. Ms. Cannedy said we need to define the time frame of moving vs storage. Mr. McKechnie, legal liaison, said we need to take out the limit to 1 unit; primary drive; improved surface; sight visibility. Does it matter on size/number? Moving vs storage, time is the differential factor. Mr. Martin stated the issue is if we don't set a time frame, units may become long term which is no longer `temporary.' We should get rid of square feet and ensure no encroachment into the right-of-ways. Ms. Miller stated that they did the paved surfaces to be in line with the donation boxes because we do require them to be on paved surfaces. Ms. Cannedy said if we don't have size requirement, we shall retain the height requirement. The consensus on moving was 15 days; fees go into place after 15 days. Ms. Miller wanted clarification since Code can't differentiate between moving and storage. Mr. Fincannon was asked if the 15 day limit on moving would work for his company. He stated that a move could take 3 to 30 days. Sometimes people stage a home and store items waiting to sell. Mr. Martin stated could have 15 days notice and anything after 60 days and 30 day pay for extension. Vil. OTHER BUSINESS 1. City Council Updates, Ms. Gagn6 highlighted that Council considered and took action on two P&Z Commission recommendations at their May ls' meeting. The council unanimously approved the rezoning of 3.54 acres at 1909/1913 Old Windthorst Road (North Texas Veterans Relief Fund) from RMU to a PUD to allow future establishment of Base Camp Lindsey Veterans Project as a tiny homes village. Secondly, council unanimously approved the ordinance revisions revamping Appendix A - Subdivision & Development Regulations for the City of Wichita Falls. This ordinance will become effective in 30-days and will impact submittal procedures for surveyors/engineers/developers with the July Plats Committee (June submittal deadline). Staff will add the new platting applications and approved ordinance to the planning division webpage and email copies to the development community. LTAIW-11 01111911111021 Jjou d at 4:08 p.m. Martin, Chairperson ...... . .......................... Schoening, Dept. of Community Development go