Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 01/12/2000Is
MINUTES
4i� PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
January 12, 2000
PRESENT:
David Rhone, Chairman • Members
Cliff Berg •
Bruce Harris •
Lou Ann Phillips •
Lin Purtle •
Randy Wachsman •
Ken Birck * Alternate
Johnny Burns * Council Liaison
David A. Clark, Director of Community Development •City Staff
Paul Stillson, Planner 11 •
Marty Odom, Planner I •
Diane Parker, Recording Secretary •
I ABSENT:
i fra",
iIiioanny Richardson • Members
Rusty Sons •
Greg Wright •
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was Called to order by Chairman Rhone at 2:00 p.m.
Ill. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one from the audience wished to address the Commission.
111111. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Berg made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 8, 1999 meeting. Mr.Birck seconded the
motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Public Hearing on Preliminary Plats
T-111111530
Standard Conditions of Approval for Preliminary Plats
Planning & Zoning Commission
Page 1
Provide utility and drainage easements as required by utility companies and the Director of Public
Works.
Submit water and sewer plans to the Utilities Engineer; water plans to the Fire Marshall and street,
sidewalk and drainage plans to the Director of Public Works. Drainage plans must be complete enough
to include impact on surrounding property and include detention facilities as required by Director of
Public Works.
Coordinate street lighting plan and provide utility easements as required by the Director of Traffic and
•
* Submit two (2) copies of corrected preliminary plat to Planning Division before final platting.
1. Hill & Hill Heights Section Two, Unit One Preliminary, (Jan 2000)
a. Show City limits line and label "in" and "out."
b. Remove four-plex designation from Lot 28, Block 2.
C. Show building limit line on Lot 28. Provide easements as required by SWBT
d. Revise date and revision number.
e. Extend water and sewer to unserved lots. (PUBLIC WORKS)
f. Construct public streets. (PUBLIC WORKS)
9- Provide stormwater detention. (PUBLIC WORKS)
h. Additional easements may be required. (TXU)
A, I Note: This plat was previously approved May 1993. According to the Subdivision Ordinance a preliminary plat
g
I WHR, expires one year from approval. This plat is being submitted for re -approval so that additional lots may
be platted.
2. Park Place Subdivision, Preliminary, Block M (Jan 2000)
a. This item is a notification plat and must also be approved with a separate hearing later in this agenda.
b. Show elevation contours on plat.
C. Show any floodway present on property.
d. Lots are currently served by public sanitary sewer. (PUBLIC WORKS)
e. Extend public water system to serve Lots 3, 4 and 5. (PUBLIC WORKS)
f. Lots I and 2 are currently served by public water system. (PUBLIC WORKS)
9. Provide stormwater detention. (PUBLIC WORKS)
h. Show width of drainage easement dedication. (PUBLIC WORKS)
I. Additional easements to be added. (TXU)
2. Public Hearing on Final Plats
A 0=1 out 0 1=1 02 Mi. INFIr. �M sillZMe 51 - 0
Provide utility easements as required by utility companies and Director of Public Utilities, and
drainage easements as required by Director of Public Works.
Submit water and sewer plans to the Utilities Engineer; water plans to the Fire Marshall; and street;
Ago sidewalk and drainage plans to the Director of Public Works. Drainage plans must be complete
enough to • •. • surrounding property and • detention facilities as required •
Director • Public Works.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Page 2
Coordinate street lighting plan with Director of Traffic & Transportation, if underground electric
utilities are to be provided.
Note: Approval of a plat does not imply development of property in violation of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Dittoe Heights, Lot I -B, Block 7 (Jan 2000)
a. This item is a notification plat and must also be approved with a separate hearing later in this agenda.
b. Lot is served by public water and sewer. (PUBLIC WORKS)
2. Downing Addition, Lot 4, Block I (Jan 2000)
a.
Show 25 foot building limit line along Speedway.
b.
Label Lot 4 on drawing.
C.
Provide utility slips.
d.
Change 1999 to 2000.
e.
Provide all original signatures on plat as per County Clerk's requirements. City staff will process
unsigned plats with the surveyor providing signatures and seals prior to filing.
f.
Lot is served by public water and sewer. (PUBLIC WORKS)
9.
Provide stormwater detention. (PUBLIC WORKS)
h.
Additional easements needed. (TXU)
3. Gulley & James Subdivision, Lot 6A, Block 255 (Jan. 2000)
a.
Provide all original signatures on plat as per County Clerk's requirements. City staff will process
unsigned plats with the surveyor providing signatures and seals prior to filing.
b.
Provide utility slips.
C.
Lot is currently served by public water and sewer. (PUBLIC WORKS)
4. Hill and Hill Heights, Unit 3 (Jan. 2000)
a.
Provide utility slips.
b.
Provide all original signatures on plat as per County Clerk's requirements. City staff will process
unsigned plats with the surveyor providing signatures and seals prior to filing.
C. Extend water and sewer to all unserved lots. (PUBLIC WORKS)
d. Provide stormwater detention. (PUBLIC WORKS)
e. Drainage is from Stansbury Lane west to canal, then along the north side of the canal. If this is correct
after lots are leveled, enough easement for drainage should be left. (WCWID#2)
IF. Additional easements may be required. (TXU)
5. Kemp's West End, Lot 1, Block I (Jan. 2000)
a.
Change'hen to "she" in the not statement.
b.
Change 1999 to 2000.
C.
Provide all original signatures on plat as per County Clerk's requirements. City staff will process
unsigned plats with the surveyor providing signatures and seals prior to filing.
d.
Identify Paula Roberts with title.
0.
Lot is currently served by public sanitary sewer. (PUBLIC WORKS)
f.
Provide 15'easement for existing sewer line. (PUBLIC WORKS)
9.
Extend water to serve lot. (PUBLIC WORKS)
6. Newcomb Downs, Section 11, Lots 5A & 5B (Jan. 2000)
a.
This item is a notification plat and must also be approved with a separate hearing later in this agenda.
b.
Provide 25-foot setback along Newcomb Terrace.
C.
Provide utility slips.
d.
Provide all original signatures on It as per County Clerk's requirements. City staff will process
unsigned plats with the surveyor providing signatures and seals prior to filing.
e.
Lots are served by public water and sewer. (PUBLIC WORKS)
Planning & Zoning Commission
Page 3
Mr. Stillson asked that Park Place Subdivision, a preliminary plat, Dittoe Heights, and Newcomb Downs be
removed from the consent agenda. They will be considered in the Regular Agenda.
(111",
Mr. Birck made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Berg seconded the motion. The Consent
Agenda passed with a unanimous vote.
V. REGULAR AGENDA
I Notification Replat
Replat of Lot I -A, Dittoe Heights
3901 Parker Blvd.
This property is located on the corner of Cynthia and Parker Blvd. This replat will change the front of the lot
from Cynthia to Parker. By making Cynthia the exterior side of this lot, the owner may construct a privacy
fence at the property line along Cynthia. The existing residence on this lot faces Parker Blvd. and the plat
will create a front setback there. Staff has determined that the only way to change a building setback is
through a replatting process. Section 212.015 (c) of the Local Government Code requires public
notification for any replat that:
1. Within the past five years had zoning limiting the area to single family or duplex use and,
2. Will remove any covenants or deed restrictions on a property.
The notification includes all of the owners of the lots or lands immediately adjoining the area covered by the
proposed replat, and extending 200 feet from that area, but within the original subdivision.
Twenty-five surrounding property owners were notified of this request. None (0) replied in favor and fifteen
(15) or 48.16% were opposed. Two opposing responses were received from outside the notification area.
These percentages were calculated by taking the actual square footage owned by each property owner plus
50% of any right-of-way adjacent to their property divided by the total square footage of land within 200 feet
of the perimeter of this plat.
Ms. Sherry Cole, 3901 Parker Blvd., and Mr. Jim Biggs appeared before the Commission. Ms. Cole stated
the reason for this replat is for her security and privacy. Prior to the tornado, she had a six foot privacy
fence fronting Cynthia Street; she would like to have one constructed now. Mr. Biggs commented that the
house across the street at 3900 Parker Blvd. has a fence fronting Cynthia. Ms. Cole stated that she
purchased one half of the lot behind her after the tornado then had her lot and that parceireplatted as one
lot. When this occurred, the building limit line was changed to Cynthia. Ms. Cole explained that the fence
would not extend to the corner; it would begin behind her front door.
Mr. James E. Allen, 3902 Cynthia Lane, expressed disapproval of anyfence over four feet. He presented
pictures to the Commission showing the corner of Cynthia and Parker from several angles. Reasons for his
opposition include fencing will cause the corner to be obstructed and fear of being hit when pulling out of his
driveway. Mr. Allen also complained that the landscaping in Ms. Cole's right-of-way is a traffic hazard.
Chairman Rhone and Mr. Stillson discussed sight obstruction as it relates to the traffic intersection.
Chairman Rhone stated that the landscaping is not the issue; the focus should be on the fence. Chairman
Rhone asked Mr. Allen if moving the fence back behind the45 degree obstruction area was a problem. Mr.
Allen stated, "There wouldn't be any problem with that other than the crepe myrtle." Mr. Allen then stated it
(the problem) was a combination of the fence and the crepe myrtles.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Page 4
Mr. Clark summarized the problems by stating Mr. Allen's concerns are any obstructions at corner in
addition to obstructions he might encounter when backing out of his driveway. Mr. Birck cited another
example at Avenue K and Buchanan,
Chairman Rhone summarized the situation by stating he seriously weighs the opposing statements but the
applicant has requested a determination of a situation that is legal and does not pose more of a safety risk.
He indicated he would vote favorably for this request.
Mr. Berg stated that had he received the mailing which looks like the fence would be constructed across
Cynthia and down Parker, he would probably object. He commented that it looks like the fence is drawn to
the 45 degree limit line. He continued by stating that it has been represented at this meeting that the fence
goes the opposite direction of the intersection by starting at the sidewalk. He stated the proposed fence is
well past the 45 degree mark, probably 90 feet from the intersection.
Mr. Harris stated that he agrees with Chairman Rhone that the City establishes standards and regulations.
Since the fence is within those regulations, he is in favor of the request.
Mr. Birck stated that he did not receive his P&Z packet until Monday and requested that they be mailed
earlier in order to give Commission members more time to research the cases. He suggested tabling the
decision on this plat until next month so he could drive by the house and look at the traffic issue.
Ms. Phillips stated that the information presented to the Commission appears to be straightforward. Traffic
and obstruction issues are problems that should be handled by other departments.
Wry"
2. Notification Replat
Replat of Lot 5, Newcomb Downs, Section 2
2 Newcomb Terrace
The property owner has proposed to replat #5 Newcomb Terrace, Lot 5, Newcomb Downs Subdivision
Sec. 2 into two lots of equal size. The owner has been granted a variance to create these two lots with
widths of less than 50 feet. That variance, granted on December 15, 1999, was approved partly based on
adjacent lots of similar size. Section 212.015 (c) of the Local Government Code requires public notification
for any replat that:
1. Within the past five years had zoning limiting the area to single family or duplex use, and
2. Will remove any covenants or deed restrictions on a property.
The notification includes all of the owners of the lots or lands immediately adjoining the area covered by the
proposed replat, and extending 200 feet from that area, but within the original subdivision.
Staff recommends approval of this request subject to conditions.
Mr. Harris made a motion to approve this replat. Ms. Phillips seconded the motion.
Twenty-one surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Five (5) replied in favor, none (0)
were opposed, and one (1) reply was classified as "other."
Mr. Martin Litteken, representative of the applicant, stated this replat was designed to make the two lots
similar in size to the other lots on this street and lot widths compatible for building.
The replat was approved with a vote of eight (8) in favor and none (0) opposed.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Page 5
3. Notification Plat
Replat of Tracts L and M, Park Place Subdivision
Southeast Corner of Lake Park Drive and Brenda Hursh Drive
The property owner has proposed to replat portions of Tracts L and M, Park Place Subdivision into five lots.
Section 212.015 (c) of the Local Government Code requires public notification for any replat that:
1. Within the past five years had zoning limiting the area to single family or duplex use, and
2. Will remove any covenants or deed restrictions on a property.
The notification includes all of the owners of the lots or lands immediately adjoining the area covered by the
proposed replat, and extending 200 feet from that area, but within the original subdivision.
Staff recommends approval of this request subject to conditions.
I 'T 0 0 =*X=# F-MTk1IXW=7M-r* =0- 41111MM6=6 AM T
Mr. Michael Cox, representative of the applicant, stated this lot is being platted to divide the land into five
lots. He stated the drainage easement has been increased by an additional 15 feet leaving vehicular
access to the rear of the existing lots since nothing can be built in that easement.
4. Case C 00-01
Outdoor Storage in GC
3601 Central Freeway North
Applicant: ............................................ Jim Sweet, Western Supplies, Inc.
Requested Action:........ ..................... Conditional Use Permit.
Purpose: ................. ........................... Outdoor storage of equipment
Property: ....................... ................... 3601 Central Freeway, north portion of Lot 1- , Stanford Addition
Existing Land Use: ............................ Western Supplies, Inc., zoned General Commercial
Surrounding Land Uses & Zoning: .. N: Vacant, MFR
E: Vacant, MFR
S: Western Supplies, GC
W: 1-44, GC
Analysis:
The applicant operates a contractors supplies, equipment and rental business on the south part of this lot at
the intersection of Merry Lane and Nashua Lane fronting on 1-44. He is in the process of fencing the north
part of the lot for outdoor storage of equipment. According to the applicant the equipment stored will not
include vehicles. Staff used the following criteria to review and evaluate this application.
Conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. — The Zoning Ordinance definition of Outdoor Storage includes:
"any material, vehicles, or equipment... held outside as inventory." Under Section 3480 of the Zoning
Planning & Zoning Commission
Page 6
Ordinance, outdoor storage is a Conditional Use subject to the approval of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
In cases such as this, the Zoning Commission has required that outdoor storage be screened as part of the
Conditional Use approval process. The applicant has proposed landscaping the area visible from the street.
Landscaping is proposed as alternative screening instead of a 6-foot privacy fence. A wood fence,
according to the applicant, was felt to pose a security risk, as it was not an adequate barrier. The
applicant's plans show a chain -link fence along the street frontage.
Staff has reviewed the proposal with the following comments:
1. According to the applicant's plan the chain link fence will be setback 25 feet, allowing an
adequate landscaping area in front.
2. The storage portion of the lot has 354 feet of street frontage requiring eight landscaping trees,
four of which shall be canopy trees. The other four could be made up 50%understory trees, and
10 five -gallon shrubs. The applicant's site plan shows only three trees and eight shrubs.
3. In instances such as the applicant is proposing (using landscaping as a screen) the size of the
shrubs and the method of planting is paramount to a successful screen. The City's restrictions
on water usage in essence prevent any tree or shrub combinations from providing an adequate
visual obstruction within any reasonable time period.
4. The applicant states that a six-foot privacy fence poses a security risk and was not an adequate
barrier. Staff feels that the security aspect of screening such a proposal would exist for any such
use. The "barrier' aspect of providing a fence was to merely screen negative impacts. The six-
foot fence, considering adjacent topography, should adequately screen most situations.
5. Staff would ask that the P&Z also consider a) the location of the proposed outdoor storage area
immediately adjacent to 1-44, and b) the expected increase in traffic from the southern Oklahoma
and North central Texas as a result of Wal-Mart, and its spin-off developments.
The property proposed for outdoor storage has been covered with a loose -ground asphalt surface. The
parking section of the Zoning Ordinance requires hard surface paving for parking areas, but not storage
areas. Whether this surface constitutes pavement requiring stormwater detention has not been determined.
— The applicant's building occupies the south part of this lot. To the east and north is vacant land zoned
Multifamily residential. There is an 80-foot wide Texas Electric easement separating this property from
adjacent multifamily lands. This easement serves as a buffer between the storage yard and the potential
multifamily development.
The area farther south of here is generally developed with warehouse service businesses. Also in the area
is the planned Budget Reservation Center as well as the Super Wal-Mart.
Location, lighting, and type of signs in relation to traffic and adjacent pr�ertie�s. - There are no signs shown
on the applicant's site plan. All lighting should be directed away from adjacent properties. Lighting and
signage should not adversely impact traffic or adjacent properties.
Safety and convenience of vehicular and pedestrian circulation and potential for increases in the vicinity i
relation to existing or permitted uses in the area. — The applicant proposes creating a 30-foot wide drive into
Planning & Zoning Commission
Page 7
the site off of Merry Lane. In staffs opinion, this driveway does not present a traffic or pedestrian hazard.
The storage yard should not create significant traffic increases on any of the adjacent streets. This driveway
and its placement should not adversely impact the future vehicular or pedestrian traffic in the area.
If this request were approved, it would be in conformance with Zoning Ordinance.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this conditional use providing that a six-foot wood privacy is fence installed
along the street frontage.
Nine surrounding property owners were notified of this request. None (0) replied in favor and three (3) or
33.33% were opposed.
Mr. Jim Sweet and Ms. Brenda Wood, applicants, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Sweet stated that
they prefer landscaping instead of a wooden fence for security reasons. Ms. Wood commented that a fence
would prevent their security service from checking the building.
Chairman Rhone inquired about the properties to the north of the applicant's property. Mr. Stillson
responded that they are vacant lots and zoned General Commercial and Multifamily Residential.
Chairman Rhone stated that he agrees with the applicant that the wooden privacy fence is used more in
residential settings; he suggested a chain link fence with barbwire on the to Mr. Harris asked if staff
objected to the trees and shrubs because of the restrictions on watering. Mr. Stillson replied that
landscaping would not visually obscure the equipment like a fence would.
Mr. Clark clarified the issue further by asking the Commission if the community would want to see behind
6 the landscaping. Mr. Berg stated that the area is growing with the addition of the new Wal-Mart and he felt
;the
staff did not want equipment storage to be seen from 1-44. Mr. Harris stated that within aGC area, he
did not feel a privacy fence was as necessary as it would be to buffer a residential area.
Mr. Wachsman stated that the Commission needs to consider the requirements of the applicants. Mr. Burns
stated that he would reserve comment, he deferred to Mr. Wachsman. He then stated that the applicant has
frontage on an interstate highway and at some point the businesses should be considered. He reminded
the Commission that if one were to send someone on a scenic tour of Wichita Falls, it would include a small
amount of driving on the highways.
Chairman Rhone stated that there is a motion with a second before the Commission to approve this request
subject to having the minimum landscaping requirement and deleting the privacy fence but installing asix
foot chain link fence. The vote was six (6) in favor and one (1) opposed. The request for outdoor storage
was conditionally approved.
5. Case C 00-02
Request for Manufactured Home
3259 Southwest Drive
Applicant ..........................................® Marvin Wittman
Requested Action ............................. Conditional Use Permit
Purpose ............................................. Manufactured Home in SF-2
Property ............................................3259 Southwest Drive, Block 13, Wichita Gardens Homesteads, 3.08
acres
Existing Land Use ........ - ...................... Single Family Residence, zoned SF-2
Surrounding Land Uses & Zoning..... N: Residence, SF-2
E: Residences, SF-2
S: Residences, SF-2
W: Church, LC
Planning & Zoning Commission
Page 8
Analysis:
The applicant requests approval to place a 1,400 square foot manufactured home on this lot containing an
existing 1008 square foot residence.
Conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. — Section 5600 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that a
manufactured home request shall be evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. (Note:
Recent amendments to this ordinance are not in effect at the time this item is being considered.)
Compatibility with the Neighborhood:
1. In Aesthetics CA I I sthetics Value -The photograph presented by the applicant shows a fagade with seven
I I and
windows, covered porch, gabled roof and vertical siding. The home is 28 feet wide and 50 feet long.
On the adjacent property to the north of this lot there is a 1612 sq. ft. duplex appraised at $32,966.
To the south is a 930 sq. ft. home valued at $16,464. Staff estimates the applicant's manufactured
home value at in excess of $30,000.
2. Is of New Construction - The applicant has indicated that it will be of new construction.
3. Orientation and Setbacks - The applicant's site plan shows the manufactured home oriented at a 45-
degree angle to the front of the lot. The proposed location is over two hundred feet from the street.
Staff feels this orientation will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
4. Meets Applicable Codes - The home must be a HUD approved home, meeting all applicable
construction and safety codes. The revised regulations for manufactured housing require a bricked
underskirting for the manufactured home. In the past the P & Z has approved these applicants with
this condition to insure compatibility.
There is an existing residence on this lot. The Single Family-2 district has a limit of one dwelling per lot, with
provision for a duplex or accessory dwelling unit. Section 6500 permits a single accessory dwelling unit
when the principal use is single family residential on a lot 10,000 square feet or greater. The applicant's lot is
134,164 square feet (3.08 acres). The Zoning Ordinance defines accessory residential units as follows:
ACCESSORY DWELLING
A detached dwelling unit accessory to a principal use on the same site.
Although the Zoning Ordinance defines an accessory use as being subordinate in area, Staff feels that it
does not necessarily prohibit placing a second dwelling unit on a lot when the second unit is larger than
original dwelling. The relative size of a dwelling does not necessarily increase on or off -site impacts. In
staffs opinion if the second dwelling is larger than the first (as is the case here) then the second dwelling
becomes the primary residence, and the original dwelling becomes the accessory unit.
If this request were approved, it would be in conformance with Zoning Ordinance.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this conditional use with the condition brick underskirting be installed. A
building permit will be required and all other applicable codes shall be met.
Mr. Harris made a motion to approve this conditional use request with Ms. Phillips making the second.
Ten surrounding property owners were notified of this request. None (0) replied in favor and four (4) or
40.0% were opposed.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Page 9
Mr. Marvin Wittman, applicant, stated he would like to install a mobile home for family members to live on his
%property. There was discussion regarding access to this newaddition which Mr. Wittman commented that it
would be through his property from the asphalt driveway.
ml a,
The Conditional Use was approved with a unanimous vote in favor.
6. Case C 00-03
Carport
3018 Huskie Drive
Applicant ...........................................Marion J. Szymanski
Requested Action .............................Conditional Use Permit
Purpose ............................................Carport in front setback
Property Address ..............................3018 Huskie Drive
Legal Description ..............................Lot 15, Block 1, Section 3, Ed Manning
Carport size ............................. ........ 20'x 23.6'
Distance to side property line ............ Five feet
Distance to front property line ........... Eight feet
All-weather alley access ....................None
Space on side for a carport ...............No
Other carports in area ...................... There are two (2) properties within
the 25 foot setback area.
I 0 vro11;lp!11�111;l�
z i
200 feet that have carports; within
Thirty surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Eight (8) or 26.67% replied in favor and
none (0) were opposed.
A motion was made and seconded to approve this carport request.
The applicant, Mr. Marion Szymanski, was available for questioning.
The vote was unanimous in favor of approval of this carport.
7. Case C 00-04
Carport
1714 Longview
Applicant ...........................................Darlene Cope
Requested Action .............................Conditional Use Permit
Purpose ............................................Carport in front setback
Property Address ........ _. ...................... 1714 Longview
Legal Description ..............................Lot 24, Block 25, Sunset Terrace 2
Analysis:
Carport size ...................................... 16'x 20'
Distance to side property line ............ 2'for roof overhang, Tfor poles
Distance to front property line ........... 4'
All-weather alley access ....................None
Planning & Zoning Commission
Page 10
Space on side for a carport ............... No
Other carports in area ...................... ... There are 4 properties within 200 feet that have a carport within the 25
1 (1 foot setback area.
Twenty-seven surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Five (5) or 18.52% replied in favor
and none (0) were opposed.
Mr. Stillson stated that the carport would be cantilevered, supported by only two beams.
The vote was unanimous in favor of approval of this carport.
8. Neon Spur Conditional Use
202 North Burnett
Mr. Stillson presented a letter to the Commission that was in response to Mr. Seese's letter of December
22, 1999 to the P&Z Commission. A revised site plan was also distributed to the members. He explained
the changes to the fence and sound wall. Other improvements to the problem were the change of angle of
the stage and using an existing building as part of the sound defection system. If the buildings are changed
or the area is enlarged, a new plan would need to be submitted to staff.
Mr. Toby Wood, of the Neon Spur, stated the building that is a part of the sound wall would remain. Mr.
Wood asked for a clarification of the hours. Chairman Rhone stated that 10:00 p.m. was the curfew for
music from Sunday through Thursday nights and 12:00 a.m., for Friday and Saturday nights. Mr. Wood
asked if this approval was immediate and Chairman Rhone stated it would be.
Mr. Berg stated that he was glad this problem was finally being resolved. There was not any intent from this
Commission to pose a detriment to the Neon Spur. Citizen editorials in the Times Record News indicated
that this Commission was not business friendly and trying to cause a problem in the community. Mr. Berg
stated P&Z supports promoting business in Wichita Falls. He commented that he enjoys the food and the
entertainment but we want to adequately protect the people in their neighborhood. Now, there is a
resolution and mutual agreement to this situation. All efforts are appreciated and we're glad that it has come
to a close.
A motion was made to reinstate the Conditional Use Permit (hours of live music to be Sunday throu
Thursday ending at 10:00 p.m. and Friday and Saturday, 12:00 a.m.). The motion was seconded. The voll
was unanimously in favor. I
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
1. Discussion of Regulations for RV Parks.
Mr. Stillson stated that the following letter to this Commission outlines the City's position concerning Mr.
John Ward's request for RV parks in zones other than RDD:
CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 23, 1999
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator
Subject: Trailer Parks
.............. . . - . . ....
Planning if Zoning Commission
Page 11
At its meeting on December 15th, Mr. John Ward addressed the Commission on the need for trailer parks i
areas other that the River Development District (RDD). Mr. Ward had discussed his desire for such a park
somewhere north of Northwest Freeway (U.S. 7). The Commission asked staff to look into this issue.
The proposed amendment to the Mobile, Manufactured and Modular Housing Regulations carried basically the
same provision as past regulations where it allowed trailers and RVs within a mobile home/manufacture
housing park. The amendment also continued with essentially the then -existing visions for the citing of stand-
alone trailer parks.
When staff met with Mr. Ward prior to the Commission meeting, he indicated his desire for such a facility that was
to have gravel roads, gravel pads, and no extension of utilities. Essentially this would be an empty field for
someone to park RVs or trailers.
Staff feels that allowing trailers, RVs, etc. outside of the RDD, as a stand-alone use, is fraught with many
problems. One problem is identifying in what other zoning district they would be allowed. Should the
Commission desire that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow this use outside of the RDD, the appropriate
zoning district will need to be identified, and the recently amended Mobile, Manufactured and Modular Housing
Regulations will need to receive further amendments.
Planning sta* met with the Director of Parks and Recreation, the manager of City -owned facilities. They, as witw
planning staff, have not identified a need forf'; has any requestbeen made prior if Mr. Ward's requestfor
additional trailer parks outside of the RDD. Should such a need develop, there is room for expansion of current
• • • Iuestlons.
Thank you.
Ms. Phillips asked for a recommendation of the zones where this usage would be compatible. Mr. Clark
suggested General Commercial. He then explained that if the ordinance is changed to permit an RV park
then they would not seek this Commission's approval unless it was made a conditional use. Mr. Berg stated
he would prefer the RV parks listed as a conditional use; Mr. Harris agreed. Ms. Phillips commented that
allowing RV parks in one district is too restrictive; there should be other options. The Commission
recommended that RV parks be allowed in General Commercial zoning as a conditional use.
2. City Council Update
a. Rezoning 3119 Windthorst Road to GC
b. Rezoning 2123 Broad Street to GC
C. Amending Code of Ordinances by Placing Certain Uses in the Conditional Use
Category
d. Manufactured Home Ordinance
Mr. Clark stated that Council upheld theCommission's recommendations and passed the first three
ordinances listed above. The manufactured home ordinance was tabled with more research required y
staff. Mr. Clark commented that the paved street issue for RV parks would require more attention by staff.
Mr. Clark reminded the Commission that an RV park and a residential manufactured home subdivision are
two different uses. He stated the ordinance would be presented to Council again once staff resolves the
minor issues.
3. Discussion of Items of Concern to Members of the P & Z Commission
Mr. Clark asked the Commission their concerns about two principal buildings being placed on the same lot.
Mr. Berg stated that this is a rare issue. Mr. Clark commented that if one building were to be sold, a problem
could arise. The issue of replatting and property responsibility was discussed.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Page 12
VII. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
Rhone, Chairman
ATTEST
David ktlark, Cortirn' ni4-66vel uni4 6 velo ment Director Date,(
Planning & Zoning Commission
Page 13