Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 06/14/2000MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 14, 2000 PRESENT: David Rhone, Chairman • Members Cliff Berg • Bruce Harris • Lou Ann Phillips • Danny Richardson • Rusty Sons • Ken Birck • J. C. Bradberry • Johnny Burns • Council Liaison David A. Clark, Director of Community Development • staff Paul Stillson, Planner II60 • Diane Parker • ABSENT: Lin Purtle • Members Greg Wright • Randy Wachsman • L, I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Rhone at 2:00 p.m. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Jack Bock, 1524 Norman, stated that an adult arcade was located at 1502 Norman in the old Jiffy Store. The District Attorney's Attorney'office has caused that business to move within the last four months. Mr. Bock suggested the zoning be changed to Limited Commercial for the two buildings (502 and 1506 Norman) to prevent other such businesses from locating there. Mr. Clark stated he would have information regarding this site at the meeting in July. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2000 • PAGE 1 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Sons made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 10, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Ms. Phillips seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote in favor. IV. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Public Hearing on Preliminary Plats — none submitted 2. Public Hearing on Final Plats The Planning & Zoning commission recommended approval of the following plats subject to the Standard Conditions of Approval for Final Plats and Replats and any specific conditions listed below: Recommend approval subject to standard conditions and any specific conditions listed below: • 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 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 with Director of Traffic and 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. 1. County Farm Addition, Lots 2-C, 2-D & 2-E (June '00) a. Refer to latest floodplain map, 0030 F revised January 19, 2000 for floodplain determinations. Floodplain boundaries are also shown on a LOMR dated February 2, 2000. b. Provide utility slips. c. Extend sanitary sewer to serve Lot 2-C. (PUBLIC S) d. Extend water to serve Lot 2-E & 2-C. (PUBLIC WORKS) e. Lot -D is served by water and sewer. Lot 2-E is served by water. (PUBLIC WORKS) f. Meet stormwater detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS) g. Meet curb and gutter requirements on Reddy Drive. (PUBLIC WORKS) .,, h. Additional easements required by TXU. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2000 • PAGE 2 2. Stone Lake Drive Right -of -Way (June 100) a. Provide utility slips. b. Construct street in accordance with City standards. (PUBLIC WORKS) c. If any utilities are proposed to cross proposed street, please install during street construction. (PUBLIC WORKS) d. Meet stormwater detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS) e. If City sewer is not provided, each lot must be a minimum of % acre if served by City water or one acre if served by a water well. (HEALTH) Mr. Birck made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Berg seconded the motion. The Consent Agenda passed with a unanimous vote in favor. V. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Rezone from RDD to GC 600-12 Burnett Street Case R 00-08-10 Applicants .............................................. Norman Squires, Dr. Pepper Bottling, C. Al Holder and W. Ray Barnes Requested Action .............................. Rezoning from River Development District to General Commercial Purpose .................................................. Expanded use of property Property,, ................................................ 600-612 (even numbers) Burnett, Lots 1-7, Block 146, Original Townsite Existing Land Use ............................. Wholesale, Storage and Retail Sales Surrounding Land Uses & Zoning .... N: Auto Supplies, RDD E: Dr. Pepper Bottling, RDD S: Retail, GC W: Municipal Court, Parking, Tamale Shop, RDD Analysis: The applicants seek to rezone seven lots on the east side of Burnett Street from River Development District to General Commercial. The properties are between Sixth and Seventh Streets and are described as follows: 1. 600-602 Burnett. Action Battery formerly operated here before relocating to the Jacksboro Highway. The property contains two buildings; the corner building appears to have once been a service station. The owner may return the golf cart sales operation to this property if it is rezoned. Under current River Development regulations, outdoor storage and display are not permitted. Under General Commercial zoning outdoor display is permitted. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 14,2000 • PAGE 3 2. 604 Burnett. Dr. Pepper Bottling owns this property. The property contains a building with an overhead door, used as a garage. Dr. Pepper has not stated any proposed change of use for this property. They might have joined this rezoning so that the other applicants could request rezoning of all this side of the block. 3. 606-608 Burnett. On this property is a vacant lot and adjacent wholesale floral and gift business. The applicant sells decorative items made of weathered wood. He purchases wood (mostly old privacy fence sections) and stores it on his vacant lot. The wood is then taken to an off -site location and manufactured into various items such as birdhouses, benches, planters, etc. The applicant requests the rezoning so that he may apply for approval of storage and fabrication at this location. The RDD district does not allow manufacturing or outdoor storage. In a GC zone, manufacturing and outdoor storage requires a conditional use permit. 4. 610-612 Burnett. These two lots are vacant except for a storage building behind the property. The owner requests rezoning to increase the potential uses allowed on these properties. a. Changed conditions: Staff analyzed the rezoning to identify conditions that have changed in the district or might have changed outside the district that directly or indirectly affect land use adjacency. With the construction of the Sixth Street exit ramp, Burnett Street will be closed to through traffic with a cul-de-sac at the north end. See attached drawing. The cul-de-sac will separate this property from the balance of the RDD district to the north. b. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan: Staff considered the effects of the land uses allowed under that proposed zoning district relative to conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Plan currently designates the property "Commercial." Therefore, this request is in conformance with the land use plan. C. The nature and degree of impact upon neighboring lands: This half block is adjacent to General Commercial zoning to the south. The proposed rezoning will not adversely the adjacent existing uses which are all of a general /heavy commercial nature. Once rezoned to General Commercial, the property may be used for any of the permitted uses in the General Commercial district. Manufacturing or outdoor storage will require a conditional use permit. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this rezoning. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2000 * PAGE 4 Mr. Harris made a motion to recommend approval of this rezoning request to City Council. Mr. Berg seconded the motion. Twenty-one surrounding property owners were notified of this request. our (4) replied in favor and none (0) were opposed. Percentages were not calculated because there were no negative responses. The applicant had planned to be at the meeting but a personal matter prevented his attendance. The rezoning recommendation passed with a unanimous vote in favor. 2. Rezone from SF-2 to LC 2603 and 2605 Ninth Street Case R 00-12 Applicant ........................................... Maxine Spomer Holland Requested Action .............................. Rezoning from Single Family-2 to Limited Commercial Purpose .......................................... For future development Property ......... ................................ 2603 & 2605 Ninth Street Existing Land Use ........................ Vacant, zoned SF-2 Surrounding Land Uses & Zoning N Offices, SF-2 E: Offices, LC S: English Pharmacy, GC W: Residence, SF-2 Analysis: The applicant seeks to rezone two lots from Single Family to Limited Commercial. The property is on the south side of Ninth Street, just west of the former Spomer Travel Agency. The property is currently zoned Single Family-2. This is the same request considered by the Commission on August 11, 1999. Then the proposed use was a parking lot for the adjacent office. Now the applicant has resubmitted the request "to market [the property] as commercial." The original request received significant opposition from the adjacent neighborhood. Of the twenty-six surrounding property owners notified, none were in favor and eight or 25% were opposed. Two additional negative responses came from outside the notification area. At the meeting, no one was present to represent the applicant. The Commission expressed regret that the applicant was not there to answer questions. The Commission then made a motion to recommend this rezoning for approval to the City Council. That motion did not pass. Afterward, the staff notified the applicant who decided not to continue with the rezoning process. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2000 • PAGE 5 WE a. Changed conditions: Staff analyzed the rezoning to identify conditions that have changed in the district or may have changed outside the district that directly or indirectly affect land use adjacency. No conditions have changed since the August 1999 request. b. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan: Staff considered the effects of the land uses allowed under that proposed zoning district relative to conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Plan currently designates the lots Light Commercial; that land use category being roughly equivalent to the Limited Commercial zoning district. This request is in conformance with the land use plan. C. The nature and degree of impact upon neighboring lands: This rezoning, with the buffering required by the Zoning Ordinance should produce minimal negative impacts upon the surrounding properties. However, during the previous request, the applicant did not address concerns for property values, drainage and flooding problems, increased traffic, delivery trucks in the alley, and trash and litter. Once rezoned to Limited Commercial, the property may be used for any of the permitted uses in the Limited Commercial district. Recommendation: This proposal is in conformance with the Land Use Plan that indicates commercial land uses on these properties. However, the previous opposition to this request has shown a high degree of concern over the impact this rezoning. The applicant's response to these concerns will be crucial in evaluating this request. Ms. Phillips made a motion to recommend approval of this rezoning request to City Council. Mr. Harris seconded the motion. Twenty-six surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Two (2) or 6.74% replied in favor and four (4) or 12.51% were opposed. 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. Mr. Nathan Brown, 2403 Ninth Street, stated that he was representing the owner, Maxine Holland. He gave a description of the surrounding properties. He then commented that these lots had structures on them dating back to 1980 when they were red -tagged (unoccupied residences in need of repair). Mr. Brown stated he felt that after 15 years if lots are unused there is either a problem with the zoning or the property. He suggested using the lots for offices. He also stated that he would install a 12 inch curb on the west end of the property with a six foot privacy fence, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2000 # PAGE 6 y, Mr. Berg asked if the three lots would be combined, Mr. Brown confirmed. Chairman Rhone asked if the buildings would be demolished; Mr. Brown responded that the building is currently the only income potential that corner has and it would not be demolished. Mr. Cameron Goodknecht, 2607 Ninth Street, stated opposition to commercial property locating next door. He also mentioned that a six foot privacy fence would not remedy the privacy issue. He stated he offered to buy a 25 foot strip from 2605 Ninth Street. Mr. Brown stated the owner was aware of Mr. Goodknecht's intentions. Mr. Harris suggested rezoning the property to RMU for stricter controls. Chairman Rhone read the uses allowed in that zone. Mr. Brown was opposed because it would require most uses to be presented to this board for conditional use approval. Mr. Stillson stated that Limited Commercial was designed as a zone to buffer residential from commercial. Mr. Mike Koen, owner of 2606 Tenth Street, recommends a building limit line of 10 feet from Mr. Goodknecht property line. He stated that he was in favor of development on those lots. Ms. Jeannie Goodknecht, 2607 Ninth Street, gave a history of the properties. Then she expressed opposition about the parking lot and the privacy fence. Mr. Stillson commented that, if rezoning is approved as Limited Commercial, the single family boundary would be next to her house and any building would be required to locate 30 feet from Ms. Goodknecht's house. There was discussion regarding the possibility of Ms. Goodknecht purchasing a strip of the property adjacent to her lot. When tabling the request was mentioned by the Commission and Ms. Goodknecht, Mr. Brown asked that a decision be made today. Ms. Mary Katherine Gibbons, 2611 Ninth Street, shared information regarding the deed restrictions which prohibit commercial zoning on parts of Ninth Street. There was a long discussion about children inheriting their parents' property. Mr. Robert Butterfield, 2609 Ninth Street, stated opposition and asked the Commission to vote against this request. Mr. Birck asked if the parking lot could be restricted to an additional building limit line. Mr. Clark responded by stating that this case is a rezoning case and restrictions on property are not encouraged. The recommendation passed with a vote of seven in favor and one 1 opposed. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2000 • PAGE 7 3. 4,500 Square Foot Office to Locate in Limited Commercial 2108 and 2110 Kemp Blvd. Case C 00-25 Applicant: Jordan Gary Requested action: Conditional Use Purpose: To Construct a 4500 Square Foot Office Property: 2108 & 2110 Kemp, Lots 5 & 6, Block 110, Floral Existing Land Use: Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: Heights Vacant, zoned Limited Commercial N: Girl Scout Office, LC S: Residential, LC E: Commercial, Office, Residential, LC W: Residential, Vacant, SF-2 Analysis: The subject property is located between Avenue L and Avenue K on the west side of Kemp Blvd. Behind the tract is an alley that is the zoning boundary between the Limited Commercial zoning to the east and residential zoning on the west side. The applicant is planning a 4500 square foot office on these two lots. Offices over 1200 square feet require conditional use approval. On May 31 the applicant appeared before the Board of Adjustment for an interpretation of the prohibition against alley access through a buffering fence. As a result, the applicant was permitted to install an alley access garage with an automatic gate and garage door. Ordinance Requirements: Staff reviewed the site plan for conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and noted the following: 1. A replat combining the two lots into one is required. 2. Provide a six-foot tall wood privacy fence along the property line adjacent to the alley. 3. Provide two canopy trees, with a two-inch caliper minimum, within the front 25- foot setback, shown on site plan. Five-foot landscaping strip and two islands along the east property line shown on the site plan meet requirements. 4. Fifteen (15) parking spaces will meet the parking requirements for a 4500 square foot building. 5. Building height shall not exceed 30 feet. 6. Access from the alley must conform to Board of Adjustments requirements: a.) An electric gate shall be installed. It shall be constructed of materials that match the fence. b.) An overhead garage door shall be installed with an electric opening device. c.) Only handicapped tenants shall use the garage. If no tenants entitled to handicapped parking privileges occupy this building, the gate shall be bolted closed, rendered inoperable. The garage door shall then be PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2000 * PAGE 8 removed and the opening shall be permanently sealed using compatible materials. Recommendation: The staff recommends approval of this conditional use. Approval of this application includes the following conditions: 1. The site plan shall conform to Board of Adjustment requirements. 2. Widen driveway to 24 feet fortwo-way access. Nineteen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Six () or 31.58% replied in favor and none (0) were opposed. Mr. Stillson stated that recommendation #2 does not apply since the driveway has an entrance and exit. He requested that the driveway have a sign with arrows showing the appropriate way to enter and exit. Mr. Mike Koen, architect represented the applicant, Jordan Gary. He stated the garage was built at the request of one of the employees with special needs. The request passed with a unanimous vote of eight (8) in favor and none () opposed. 4. Carport 1339 Covington Case C 00-21 Applicant Requested action Purpose Property Existing Land Use Carport size Distance to side property line Distance to front property line All-weather alley access Space on side for a carport Other carports in area Rudy Hawkins Conditional Use Permit Carport in Front Setback 1339 Covington, Lot 1, Block 30, Sunset Terrace Residence 34.9'x24' 20' 6' None No There are 5 properties within 200 feet that have a carport within the 25 foot setback area. Sixteen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Six () or 37. % replied in favor and none (0) were opposed. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2000 • PAGE 9 Mr. Berg made a motion to approve this carport. Ms. Phillips seconded the motion. The carport passed with a unanimous vote in favor. 5. Carport 4512 Lakeview Drive Case C 00-22 Applicant: .................................... Jay Luong Requested action: ........................ Conditional Use Permit Purpose: ....................................... Carport in Front Setback Property: ........................... ........... 4512 Lakeview Drive, Lot 6, Block 1, University Park, Section A-4 Existing Land Use: ....................... Residence Carport size ................................... 20 x 20 feet Distance to side property line....... 5 feet Distance to front property line ...... 9 feet minimum All-weather alley access ............. None Space on side for a carport.......... No Other carports; in area ..................There are 3 properties within 200 feet that have a carport within the 25 foot setback area. Note to applicant. If approved, a building permit will be required. Twenty-three surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Six (6) or 26.08% replied in favor and none (0) were opposed. Ms. Phillips made a motion to approve this carport request. Mr. Harris seconded the motion. The carport passed with a unanimous vote in favor. 6. Carport 1919 Minnetaska Drive Case C 00-23 Applicant ........................................ Nancy E. McKinley Requested action ......................... Conditional Use Permit Purpose .......................................... Carport in Front Setback Property ........................................1919 Minnetaska, Lot 11 & 12, Block C, West Indian Heights Existing Land Use ............................. Residence Carport size .................................12 x 20 Distance to side property line ....... 10. 1' Distance to front property line ...... 7.3' All-weather alley access ................ None Space on side for a carport.......... No PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2000 • PAGE 10 Other carports in area., ...... .......... There are 3 properties within 200 feet that have a carport within the 25 foot setback area. Note to applicant. If approved, a building permit will be required, Twenty surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Five (5) or 25.0% replied in favor and none (0) were opposed. Mr. Birck made a motion to approve this carport request. Mr. Berg seconded the motion. The carport passed with a unanimous vote in favor. 7. Carport 1415 Gunnison Drive Case 00-24 Applicant ...................................... Ronald D. Whitehead Requested action.........................Conditional Use Permit Purpose ....................................... Carport in Front Setback Property.........W,,.,w.m.......................1415 Gunnison Drive, Lot 23, Block 35, Sunset Terrace 2 Existing Land Use ........................ Residence Carport size ................................. 20 x 22 feet �r Distance to side property line....... 3.5 feet Distance to front property line ...... 5.5 feet All-weather alley access .............. There is a paved alley. In cases such as this, the Commission must find that rear access to the property is not "reasonably possible." Space on side for a carport.......... No Other carports in area..................There are 6 properties within 200 feet that have a carport within the 25 foot setback area. Thirty-four surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Ten (10) or 29.41 % replied in favor and none (0) were opposed. Mr. Harris made a motion to approve this carport. Mr. Berg seconded the motion. The carport passed with a unanimous vote in favor. Mr. Stillson reminded the Commission that they were to determine if access to the rear of this property is reasonably possible. He mentioned there are two accessory buildings in the rear which would limit access. Mr. Harris asked if the portable storage buildings could be moved to make access. The applicant, Mr. Ronald Whitehead, applicant, stated one building in the rear of the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2000 • PAGE 11 property has a permanent foundation and even though the other building has a �r permanent foundation it has not been permanently affixed to it. Mr. Harris commented that he did not think there was reasonable access to the rear of the property. The carport passed with a unanimous vote in favor. VI. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Recommendation to the City Council to Adopt the Amended Air Installation Use Zone (AICUZ) Study, and to Amend Section 6435 of the Zoning Ordinance as it Pertains to the Establishment of Noise Zones Around Sheppard Air Force Base. Adopting the Air Installation Use Zone (AICUZ) Study In August of 1999, Sheppard Air Force Base amended its Air Installation use Zone (AICUZ) Study. This was due to changes in aircraft operations and the use of new noise modeling software that produces a more accurate depiction of aircraft noise. The new study has resulted in a significant decrease in the area affected by established noise contours. This agenda item is before the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council on officially adopting the new AICUZ Study. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Staff also recommends amending Section 6435, a, of the Zoning Ordinance to read as follows with the new language highlighted. A. Zone Boundaries. The boundaries of said zones are established as shown on the map included in the latest AICUZ study for Sheppard Air Force Base, da#1 Auk t 1999. Noise zones are located within the 65 db or greater noise contour as shown in the latest AICUZ study for Sheppard Air Force Base. Mr. Berg made a motion to recommend approval to City Council to adopt the amended AICUZ Study; Mr. Harris seconded the motion. The recommendation passed with a unanimous vote in favor. 2. City Council Update Mr. Clark reported that both rezonings from the May meeting, McDowell Survey and 37th Street, were approved by the City Council. He also stated that the changes recommended by this Commission to the Thoroughfare Plan were approved. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2000 • PAGE 12 3. Discussion of Items of Concern to Members of the P&Z Commission Mr. Harris inquired about the status of the carport authority issue with City Council. Councilor Burns stated he is in full support of the Commission having approval of all carports; however, it has not been presented to Council recently. 4. Staff/Commission Discussion Mr. Clark stated that the police were called to the Neon Spur on Saturday, June 3, for excessive noise. Chairman Rhone commented that he received a call from a citizen regarding this same issue. VII. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. David Rhone, CKairman ATTEST: Steve S6ese, City P)O iing Administrator Date Date" PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2000 • PAGE 13