Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 04/10/2019MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 10, 2019 PRESENT: Jack Browne ♦ Member David Cook ♦ Member Blake Haney ♦ Member Krystal James ♦ Vice -Chair Steve Lane ♦ Member Dan Leslie ♦ Alternate #1 Cayce Wendeborn ♦ Member Jeremy Woodward ♦ Alternate #2 Mark McBurnett ♦ SAFB Liaison Paul Menzies, Assistant City Manager ♦ City Staff James McKechnie, Senior Asst. City Attorney Karen Montgomery -Gagne, Planning Administrator Fabian Medellin, Planner II Skyler Henricks, Planning Technician Pat Hoffman, Property Mgmt. Administrator Rita Miller, Code Enforcement & Housing Administrator ABSENT: Rick Graham ♦ Member Anthony Inman ♦ Member Rodney Martin ♦ Chairperson Councilor Whitelev ♦ Council Liaison I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chairperson, Ms. Krystal James, at 2:00 p.m. Vice -Chairperson James proceeded to make the following comments. a. This meeting is being televised live on Channel 1300. 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. Planning and Zoning 2 April 10, 2019 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. II. ROLL CALL Commission Vice -Chairperson Krystal James roll called commission and staff members. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Rhonda Jones of 4703 Fairway Boulevard stepped up to address the Commission. Mr. MCKechnie as legal staff, advised the Commission this was a time the public could voice an opinion but Commission could not have a discussion about anything not on the agenda and advised the Commission to not have a dialogue with public. Ms. Jones stated at the last Planning & Zoning meeting she found there was some opposition to her conditional use request and just wanted the Commission to know she had reached out to the public and had with her a petition that had been signed by the public and brought someone with her that wished to speak on her behalf. Ms. Jones stated "she knew she was on the agenda for next month and was looking forward to presenting her case". Ms. Dana Ricketts of 4618 Belmont Drive advised the Commission she was there to support Ms. Jones and her conditional use request that was not on the agenda. Ms. James asked if there were any further comments. With no response, Ms. James closed public comments. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Jack Browne made a motion to adopt the March 13, 2019 minutes. Mr. Dan Leslie seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. V. CONSENT AGENDA Final Plats 1. H&J Flores Addition, Lot 1, Block 1 Ms. Jack Browne made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Mr. David Cook seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. VI. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Case C 19-10 — 1316 Montgomery Street: Request for a conditional use to allow a carport in the required front setback in a Single -Family 2 Residential (SF-2) zoning district. Applicant: Delfino Maldanado Sr., Contractor Mr. Henricks presented the case and stated Delfino, Maldanado Sr. is a contractor representing home owner Juan Garnica who is seeking a conditional use approval to construct a 20 ft. X 20 ft. carport in the front setback of 1316 Montgomery Street. The property is located in the southeastern portion of Wichita Falls, east of Jacksboro Hwy and south of Midwestern Pkwy. Mr. Henricks stated the carport Planning and Zoning 3 April 10, 2019 would have a side interior setback of 9 ft. and front setback of 3 ft. There is an example carport located at 3800 Parker Road which is identical to what Mr. Maldanado is requesting to build. Mr. Henricks stated staff sent a total of 27 notices to property owners within the 200 ft. notification area. Six (6) responses were received all in favor of the carport. Staff recommended approval of the requested conditional use for a carport at 1316 Montgomery Street subject to the following conditions: A. 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. Ms. James asked if 'the applicant was present and wished to make a presentation, with no response Ms. James then asked if anyone else would like to speak. No comments were made, Ms. James closed for public discussion and opened up to the Commission. With no responses or questions from the Commission Ms. James called for a vote. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Case C 19-11 — 2 Surrey Circle: Request for a conditional use to allow a carport in the required front setback in a Single Family-2 Residential (SF-2) zoning district. Applicant: Jim Johnson Mr. Henricks presented the case and stated Mr. Jim Johnson with Creemos, LLC. had applied for a conditional use to construct a carport 12 ft. X 20 ft. in the first 25 feet of the front setback. The subject property is located on the west portion of Wichita Fails off Seymour Road and north of Norte Dame. Mr. Henricks stated the carport would have a 17 ft. front setback and 5 ft. side interior setback. Mr. Johnson had previously advised staff the concrete for the padding of the carport would be extended out to the side of the house so that the poles for the carport would be set in concrete. It was a miscommunication with contractor that it was not poured that way in the beginning. Mr. Henricks advised the example carport was located at 4 Surrey Circle and the zoning of the subject property area is a mix of Single Family 1 & 2 with Multi -Family use on each side. Mr. Henricks stated staff mailed a total of 17 notifications with 2 responses in favor, 0 in opposition and 1 response with no opinion/undecided. Also within the 200 ft. notification area were three (3) other carports. Staff recommended approval of the carport located at 2 Surrey Circle subject to the following conditions: A. 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. Ms. James asked if the applicant was present and wished to speak, then asked if any others wished to speak, with no comments, Ms. James closed the comments to the public and opened comments to the Commission. No comments from the Planning and Zoning 4 April 10, 2019 Commission, Ms. James called for a vote for the approval to construct a carport located at 2 Surrey Circle. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Case C 19-12 — 6707 Melrose Drive Request for a conditional use to allow a carport in the required front setback in a Single Family-2 Residential (SF-2) zoning district. Applicant: Irma Gutierrez Mr. Henricks presented the case and stated Planning staff had received an application from Ms. Irma Gutierrez for a conditional use to construct a 20 ft. X 20 ft. carport in the front setback of her property. The subject property, 6707 Melrose Drive is located in the southwestern portion of Wichita Falls, east of Southwest Pkwy. and Sisk Road and south of Kell Frwy. The properties interior setback is bordered with an alley and after further analysis the proposed carport will not interfere with the sight visibility triangle. The carport will have setbacks of 20 feet to the interior side setback and 13 feet 8 inches to the front property line. The example carport is located at 4502 Sisk Road with the zoning in that area all Single Family-2. Mr. Henricks stated staff mailed a total of 19 notifications with 2 responses in favor, 1 in opposition and 1 response with no opinion/undecided. Also, within the 200 ft. notification area were two (2) other carports, but only one in the front setback. Staff recommended approval of the carport located at 6707 Melrose Drive subject to the following conditions: A. 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. Ms. James asked if the applicant was present and wished to speak, then asked if any others wished to speak, with no comments, Ms. James closed the comments to the public and opened comments to the Commission. No comments from the Commission, Ills. James called for a vote for the approval to construct a carport located at 6707 Melrose Drive. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Case T 19-01 Text Amendment — Various Changes: Public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Code of ordinances, Appendix B: Zoning, regarding the following regulations: 1) Revisions and additions to definitions to maintain standards aligned with Federal and State standards and to create Planned Unit Development classification; 2) Creating minimum habitable dwelling densities and amending the submittal requirements of a Planned Unit Development; 3) Amending allowable structures projecting into the front and side yard exterior setbacks to allow for carport placement without a conditional use permit. a) Discussion Planning and Zoning 5 April 10, 2019 Mr. Fabian Medellin presented the proposed amendments as a discussion item and stated staff working under the direction of the new strategic plan approved by City Council in order to stabilize neighborhoods and improve staff relations in the development community, planning would like to recommend a few amendments to three sections of the zoning ordinance. 1) Definitions —Maintenance and Additions Mr. Medellin stated as federal and states levels update laws and definitions so should local level governments. These changes not only affect interpretation, but also affect development from those changes. The proposed ordinance addresses updates to words such as family, Planned Unit Development (PUD) and driveway. Planning staff had also proposed to amend ordinances regarding Planned Unit Developments (PUD) districts. Staff was proposing to create three distinct Planned Unit Development Districts (PUD) to further allow flexibility of development while protecting adjacent land development. The three districts [Planned Unit Development — Commercial Use (PUD-CU), Planned Unit Development —Mixed Use (PUD-MU) and Planned Unit Development —Residential (PUD-RU)] establish a guideline of which PUD is allowed based on the city's zoning ordinances and Land Use Plan. 2) Residential Densities and PUD Submittal Mr. Medellin advised currently, a proposed home, in an allowed district could be built with no standards set forth by the city other than those in the adopted International Residential Code (IRC) which state a home could be built at a minimum size of 240 square feet in any district a detached single family residence is allowed. Staff anticipated home builders and residents not all building the same size home, based on the research, an appropriate range was determined to allow for a conditional use request process to build a residence below the minimum square footage with additional analysis by staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Special consideration was also given to various different residential development for each district when determining the allowable minimum and conditionally allowed size ranges. 3) Allowable Carports within the Front and Side Yard Setback Mr. Medellin advised currently carports are allowed in the required front and side yard setbacks with an approved conditional use. Mr. Medellin explained the current process to the Commission and advised staff would like to propose an amendment to Section 4220 as originally presented for consideration in 2017 to allow city staff to provide prompt and expeditious service to the community proposing that carports be allowed to be constructed within a set distance in the front and side yard setback with approval by city staff. If a carport is proposed to be constructed within 5 feet of the property line either in the front or side exterior property line, approval from the Commission will still be required. Mr. Medellin stated staff is presenting this information to the Commission to gain insight and direction with the intent of returning in May for a vote to favorably recommending the noted amendments for City Council consideration. Mr. Medellin concluded and advised the Commission that was a brief summary of the amendments staff had proposed and stated staff was available to answer any questions. Ms. James asked if there was anyone present that wished to speak, Michael Planning and Zoning 6 April 10, 2019 Grassi, Classic Builders, a local homebu1Iderldeveloper stated as far as requesting a minimum square footage of a new home this could really limit his building options and asked the Commission to consider that in setting any new requirements or limitations. No further comments, Ms. James closed the public discussion and opened discussion up to the Commission. Commissioner Steve Lane asked Mr. Medellin what the thought process was and reasoning behind the minimum requirements. Mr. Medellin stated there are few areas with enforceable deed restrictions and at present, on a vacant, lot someone could propose to build a 240 sq. ft. home (minimum by code) and it could be approved. What staff would like to do is keep the continuity of that neighborhood intact. Staff looked at numbers and in that range of districts there were more homes above that median than below. What staff is asking for is only a minimum standard. Mr. Lane asked if with the growing popularity of tiny homes if this would regulate future building of a tiny home development. Mr. Medellin stated that is where staff has come up with the Planned Unit Developments (PUD) guidelines. Ms. Cayce Wendeborn stated her understanding was that if a structure was damaged by fire that it could rebuilt with the same square footage as before. Mr. Medellin staked that is correct and would be considered legally non -conforming. Further discussion among Commission and planning staff about the size restrictions. Mr. Medellin advised the Commission the time line for the amendments was an initial presentation today with the intent of returning in May as an action item to consider a recommendation on the amendments for City Council consideration. VI. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Texas Legislative Session Update — Bills to Watch Ms. Gagne highlighted the packet synopsis and stated there were over four hundred bills filed this session. Planning staff work closely with their professional affiliate, the Texas Chapter of the American Planning Association, and receive updates regarding development related house/senate bills. Ms. Gagne advised there were some bills that would benefit planning if they were to move forward, but also many that pose concern with potentially serious ramifications for cities and land use if they were to move forward. Ms. Gagne advised the Commission how to sign up for legislative updates via the web pages for TNI L, Leg isca n TX, etc. VII. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 2.55 p.m. Rodney Martin, Chairperson ATTEST: r yrJ ! I t Karen IVontgom �ry-Gage , Deptof ommunity Development mentJ Date Date