Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 11/08/20004 ap
PRESENT:
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
November 8, 2000
David Rhone, Chairman
• Members
Cliff Berg
•
Ken Birck
•
James Bradberry•
Lou Ann Phillips
•
Lin Purtle
•
Danny Richardson
•
Rusty Sons
•
Greg Wright
•
Johnny Burns
* Council Liaison
ells", David A. Clark, Director of Community Development
* Staff
4 W Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator
•
Paul Stillson, Planner 11
•
Diane Parker
•
ABSENT:
Bruce Harris • Members
Randy Wachsman •
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Rhone at 2:00 p.m.
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one from the audience wished to address the Commission.
Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
�1'101' Ms. Purtle made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 11, 2000 meeting. Mr.
%jr Sons seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote in
favor.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 8, 2000 * PAGE 1
0
%A/d/a/
W IV. CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Rhone abstained from voting with Ms. Purtle chairing this portion of t1i
meeting.
A. Public Hearing on Preliminary Plats
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the following plat(
eubject to the Standard Conditions of Approval for Preliminary Plats and any specif
conditions listed below: I
Standard Conditions of Approval for Preliminary Plats
• Provide utility and drainage easements as required by utility companies and the
Director of Public Works.
• Submit water and sewer to the Utilities Engineer; water plans to the it 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 thm
Director of Traffic and Transportation, I
Submit two (2) copies of corrected preliminary plat to Planning Division befo
final platting. i
Note: Approval of a plat does not imply development of property in violation of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Recommend approval subject to standard conditions and any specific conditions list
below: i
1. Preliminary. Expressway Village (Nov. '00)
a. Extend sanitary sewer to all unserved lots. (PUBLIC WORKS)
b. Extend water to all unserved lots. (PUBLIC WORKS)
c. Comply with storm water detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
d. Construct all internal streets in accordance with City standards. (PUBLIC
WORKS)
e. Additional 10' dedicated utility easement to be added along the perimeter of
tract. (TU ELECTRIC)
2. Preliminary.* Sikes Trails (Nov.'00)
a. Show floodplain status of property. (To assure continued maintenance of
0111
the all property within the subdivision, eliminate all open space lots by
(11
�w combining them with adjacent properties. Leave no tract without a number.)
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 8,2000 * PAGE 2
13
b.
Coordinate street names with Planning Division. Use name other than
Shepherds Glen.
c.
Label all proposed streets as "herein dedicated."
d.
Internal street shall align with adjacent Shepherds Glen to the west of the
subdivision.
e.
Create 901 intersection with Lake Park Drive.
f.
Extend water serve to all lots. (PUBLIC WORKS)
g.
Extend sanitary sewer to all lots. (PUBLIC WORKS)
h.
Comply with storm water detention ordinances. (PUBLIC WORKS)
i.
Construct all internal streets in accordance with City standards. (PUBLIC
WORKS)
j.
Locate existing 12" water main and dedicate a 15 foot easement. (PUBLIC
WORKS)
k.
Provide drainage improvements. (PUBLIC WORKS)
I.
Additional easements needed. (TU ELECTRIC)
m.
Coordinate with Parks Dept. for access to existing trail. (PARKS — Jack
Murphy — 761-7490)
3. Preliminary., Smith -Walker Addition, Block I (Nov. '00)
a.
Lots are served with water and sewer. (PUBLIC WORKS)
b.
Comply with curb and gutter requirements. (PUBLIC WORKS)
c.
d.
Comply with storm water detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
Obtain FAA clearances. (TRAFFIC)
B. 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 list'i
•
• 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.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 8, 2000 • PAGE 3
Note: Approval of a plat does not imply development of property in violation of
the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Expressway Village, Lot 8, Block 25 (Nov. '00)
a. Extend sanitary sewer to serve property. (PUBLIC WORKS)
b. Comply with storm water detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
c. Construct street in accordance with City standards. (PUBLIC )
d. Provide temporary turn around on Russell Drive. (PUBLIC WORKS)
e. Remove all "future notations on plat. (PUBLIC WORKS)
f. Dedicate utility easement along south line of 8.0 acre tract. Needs to be
changed from 5' to 10'utility easement. (TU ELECTRIC)
2. H-S Subdivision, Lot 2, Block 10 (Nov. '00)
a. Lot is served by sanitary sewer. (PUBLIC WORKS)
b. Extend water to serve lot. (PUBLIC WORKS)
c. Comply with storm water detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
d. Check street name (Drive, Lane, Avenue, etc.)
3. Lakeview Farms, Lot 1, Block 48 (Nov. '00)
a. Clarify the right-of-way width of Lake Road. Dedicate right-of-way equaI t
one-half of the required 65-foot ROW section.
b. Comply with curb and gutter ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
4. Parkstone Addition. Lot 1, Block 1 (Nov. '00)
a. Dedicate an additional 2.5 feet for street widening along Crestview Memorial
Road and Rathgeber Roads Note: the applicant has applied for a variance
to eliminate this requirement.
b. Show city limits line.
c. Provide utility slips.
d. Extend sanitary sewer to serve lot. (PUBLIC )
e. Lot is served by water. (PUBLIC WORKS)
f. Comply with storm water detention ordinance. (PUBLIC )
g. Comply with curb and gutter ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
h. Dedicate utility easement along south and east property line of this tract.
(TU ELECTRIC)
5. University Park Section 8, Lots 2A-7A, Block 8 (Nov. '00)
a. Plats with over four lots require P & Z approval. Revise plat for P & Z
signatures.
Mr. Berg made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Richardson seconded
the motion. The vote was eight (8) in favor and none (0) opposed.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 8, 2000 • PAGE 4
V. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Rezone from RDD to Ll
225 Scott Avenue
Case R 00-17
Applicant . .............................. ...... Baxter Featherston, for Pond Management
Requested Action. ......................... Rezone from River Development District to Light
Industrial District.
Property-, ......................................... 225 Scott Avenue, Lots 15-21, Block 103, Original
Townsite
Existing Land Use ........ ......... ..Vacant Auto Sales Lot, RDD
Surrounding Land Uses & Zoning N: Auto Sales RDD
E: Bearing Supply, LI
S: Auto Sales, Ll
W: Pond Industries, RDD
Analysis:
The applicant is requesting rezoning from River Development District (RDD) zoning to
Light Industrial (LI). The request is made so his client can construct a 254-foot
communications tower on this site. Since radio towers are not permitted in the RDD
zoning district, he is requesting Light Industrial zoning.
Much of the zoning surrounding this tract is already Light Industrial. The block is
located on the outer boundary of the RDD zoning district, where it abuts the light
industrial zoning portion of the original downtown. The property was part of a large area
zoned RDD to accommodate the Multi -Purpose Events Center (MPEC) and related
tourist and entertainment uses.
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. Since the initial zoning, two phases of the
MPEC complex have been constructed. The east portion of the property is the site
of the planned coliseum.
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 these lots as
"Commercial." If approved this zoning change will also require a change in the Land
Use Plan for this property from Commercial to Light Industrial.
c. The nature and degree of impact upon neighboring lands: The property is adjacent
to commercial and industrial development and vacant land. Without scientific
evidence of the danger of the electrical emissions, the primary impact of this
development will be the visual and physical presence of the tower itself. The 254-
foot tower will be taller than any existing structure in the downtown area. The towers
on top of the Hamilton building reach 197 feet. The freestanding tower at 908 Eight
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 8,2000 + PAGES
Street is 180 feet tall. The zoning ordinance does not place limits on the height of
structures within a Light Industrial zone
Being that the tower is in line with the runway centerline of Municipal Airport, and
over 200 feet tall, an aeronautical study will be required to assure that the tower is
not an airspace obstruction or hazard. Any tower must be in conformance with the
height limitation requirements of the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA).
If this rezoning is approved, an amendment to the Land Use Plan will be required.
Recommendation:
At this time, staff is concerned about the effects of the proposed rezoning of this
property to Ll. Reasoning is based on the following:
1. The proposed location of this tower is on US Hwy. 287 BUS. a primary access
street for PEC. The coliseum, should it be built, would provide the impetus for
increased retail development. The potential for concentrated development
related to not only support of MPEC, but for the redevelopment of downtown
would be reduced.
2. Staff feels that the nature of existing land uses on this block to be occupied by
the tower and the age, nature and values of area land uses lend themselves to
future redevelopment.
3. With the exception of ad valorem taxes, the parcels occupied by the tower would
be non -revenue generating, and non-contributing to the development of this area.
4. While the height of the tower will cause evaluation by the FAA, it must be
remembered that the FAA is only making determinations based on existing
conditions at Sheppard AFB and the Municipal Airport. They do not consider
potentials. In addition, the FAA has historically taken a neutral stance on these
issues. For example, they would say that the tower location is inappropriate and
could possess a hazard to air traffic. They would then come back and say that it
would be OK if lights were installed. This tower is in alignment with the flight
paths of both the Municipal Airport and Kickapoo AirPark.
In summary, staff is not opposed to the rezoning per se, but feels that the Commission
should seriously consider the impact of the proposed tower on the area before making
its recommendation.
Ms. Philips made a motion to recommend approval of this rezoning to City Council. Mr.
Sons seconded the motion.
Fourteen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One (1) or 6.4%
replied in favor and five (5) or 17.9% were opposed. These percentages were
calculated by taking the actual square footage owned by each property owner plus 50%
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 8, 2000 + PAGE 6
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. Baxter Featherston, Pond Management, requested the change in zoning to
construct a communications tower in the downtown area. He then introduced Mr.
Laddie Galloway and Mr. Rick Roller from Titan Towers.
Mr. Roller stated that Titan would like to construct a wireless communication tower in
the downtown area which will also service the MPEC area. This tower will enable
wireless internet to be available in this area. Leased tower space will be available
locally for businesses and government offices as well as radio, television, broad band,
and SMR radios. National technology companies are also potential customers for tower
space. This tower will offer better coverage than the roof -top antennas because of its
height and it is a free standing tower which will not have an umbrella effect on reception
or transmission.
Mr. Sons inquired if space was pre -sold prior to the construction. Mr. Roller stated that
space is not sold prior to construction. Mr. Galloway stressed that, if the coliseum were
built, this tower would be essential for MPEC-related communications.
Chairman Rhone asked about the design of the tower. Mr. Roller replied that this of
be a lattice tower to allow more equipment to be installed and mono poles are not
14constructed for a height of 284'.
01
Ms. Phillips asked why this location was selected. Mr. Roller replied that it was within
one-half mile of the center of the city, close to freeway, not in a residential area, will
generate business for the MPEC, and will provide wireless internet for downtown
offices. When asked if other downtown sites were considered, Mr. Roller commented
that he is limited by zoning and does not want to locate in residential areas. He spent
several days looking at locations. Mr. Galloway stated that the only limiting factor would
be any height restriction from FAA. Mr. Seese replied that the preliminary report from
FAA restricted the height from the originally proposed 300' to 254'. Mr. Galloway stated
that with a 30-day circulation period the tower could possibly be built higher.
Mr. Birck asked if locating towers within the downtown area was the latest trend., Mr.
Roller replied it was and he has five towers in California locating in metropolitan areas.
Wireless internet is having trouble locating roof -top space and available tower space.
Mr. Birck asked if other companies would consider locating similar towers in Wichita
Falls; Mr. Roller replied that his firm would be less anxious if there was a tower located
in a city but he cannot predict what someone else would do.
Chairman Rhone asked what the City's position would be if the location selected did not
have to be rezoned. Mr. Seese replied that he would be able to install the tower it
prior approval. Mr. Seese mentioned that changing the zoning was jeopardizing the
integrity of RDD. He also stated that the connection between downtown and MPEC
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 8, 2000 + PAGE 7
was proposed as a retail corridor, even though there are vacant buildings and some
industry located there. Mr. Clark stated that staff has no objection to this rezoning.
Mr. Wright suggested the Commission consider the impact of rezoning this lot on
adjacent commercial use. He then asked how close towers were to commercial use in
other cities. Mr. Galloway stated that towers have been integrated into various
commercial settings and not considered an eyesore but infrastructure. While serving
the community, the tower has not been labeled a detriment. Mr. Birck asked what
would make the tower less imposing. Mr. Seese stated he did not think the tower was
an aesthetic issue.
There was discussion regarding the location of the tower on the lot. Mr. Roller stated
the tower could be moved to the back of the lot in order for the property to reopen as a
car lot.
The vote was unanimous in favor of the recommendation.
2. Carport
3006 Blanton
Case C 00-42
In cases such as this one where there is a paved alley in the rear of the property, the
Commission must determine that rear access to the property is not reasonably possible.
Twenty-three surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Six (6) or
26.09% replied in favor and none (0) were opposed.
Mr. Richardson made a motion to approve this carport request; Mr. Bradberry seconded
it.
The applicant, Ms. Anne Smith, stated her objections for not constructing the carport in
the rear were centered around the removal of the fence. The fence provides a barrier
protecting her house from wayward cars and also acts as security.
Mr. Seese stated that, with the presence of the trees and the angle of the alley, a
carport located in the rear is not reasonably possible.
3. Construct A Duplex at 7 Mayfair Terrace
Case C 00-44
.VW K-7-4 .....................................I -_ a -
Requested Action .......................... Duplex
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 8, 2000 # PAGE 8
4111-
Property............., ............. .................... # 7 Mayfair Terrace, Lot 29, Block 48, Fountain Park,
Sec. 3-D
Existing Land Use .........................Vacant land, SF-2
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning.. N: Duplex, SF-2
S: Duplex, SF-2
E: Duplex, SF-2
W: Residence, SF-2
Analysis:
The applicant requests approval to construct a duplex on this property at #7 Mayfair
Terrace. The property is zoned single family-2 (SF-2) and in this zone duplexes require
a conditional use permit.
Mayfair Terrace is a cul-de-sac located in
has been developed with duplexes on each
vacant lot.
Fountain Park, west of McNiel. This street
lot. The applicant's lot is the only remaining
The site plan shows a duplex with a driveway and garage on either side. To better
illustrate the plan, staff redrew it on the computer. In the staffs drawing, it appeared
that the building might extend into an easement at the end of the lot. However, because
of the lack of detail, this was not certain. As the project covers a considerable portion of
the lot, staff calculated the percent of building coverage. In a Single Family zone, a
structure cannot cover more than 50% of the lot. Staff found this project met
requirements with 45% of the lot being covered.
Nevelopmental Requirements:
1. A site fully dimensioned site plan will be required prior to obtaining a building permit.
�_# =1- 0 �-* �
This development will be compatible with this all -duplex street. Staff recommends that
this project be approved.
Mr. Berg made a motion to approve this duplex with Mr. Richardson offering the second.
Twenty-five surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Five (5) or
20.0% replied in favor and none (0) were opposed.
The Commission voted unanimously to approve this request for a duplex.
4. Carport
209 Loch Lomond
Case C 00-44
In cases such as this one where there is a paved alley in the rear of the property, the
Commission must determine that rear access to the property is not reasonably possible.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 8, 2000 * PAGE 9
Mr. Sons made a motion to approve this carport request. Mr. Wright seconded.
Twenty-seven surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Seven (7) or
27.93% replied in favor and one (1) or 3.7% was opposed.
Mr. Randy Esch, applicant, stated his reasons for wanting a carport were safety factors
and the direct access to his lot would be through the nonpaved area of the alley.
The vote was unanimous in favor of approval of this carport.
5. Carport
4809 Colleen Drive
Case C 00-45
Mr. Berg made a motion to approve this carport request with Mr. Richardson offering the
second.
Eighteen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Five (5) or 27.78%
replied in favor and none (0) were opposed.
The applicant was present but did not wish to address the Commission.
The vote was unanimous in favor of approving this carport request.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
1. City Council Update
Rezoning of eight acres at Missile Road and Central Freeway to MFR for
apartment complex.
Mr. Clark reported that this rezoning case was approved at the recent Council meeting.
2. Discussion of Items of Concern to Members of the P&Z Commission
Mr. Berg asked when the next meeting was planned for a discussion about outdoor
storage. Mr. Seese replied that most of the responses have been received from cities
surveyed about this issue and that staff will set a date for the next workshop.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 8,2000 • PAGE 10
0
3. Staff/Commission Discussion
Mr. Seese stated that in the future there would be workshops about allowing auto
shades and other minor corrections to the Zoning Ordinance.
V111. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 3:04 p.m.
A
David Rhone, Chai'rm-a'n
MAM
StevC§`66Ce, City P,466ing Administrator
Date
ba-t'e . ............
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 8, 2000 * PAGE 11