Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 06/13/2001MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
June . 2001
PRESENT:
David Rhone, Chairman
• Members
L. O. Nelson
•
Lin Purtle
•
Danny Richardson
•
Bill Rowland
•
Rusty Sons
•
Ken Birck
• Alternate #1
J. C. Bradberry
• Alternate #2
Johnny Burns, Councilor • Liaison
Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator • staff
Paul Stillson, Planner II •
ABSENT:
Cliff Berg •
Susan Wood Reeves •
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Rhone at 2:00 p.m.
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one from the audience wished to address the Commission.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Birck made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 9, 2001 meeting as
submitted. Mr. Pirtle seconded the motion. The minutes were passed with a
unanimous vote in favor.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 1, 2001 • PAGE 1
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
Public Hearing on Preliminary 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 for
final plats 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 o
Public Works.
• Coordinate street lighting plan with Director of Traffic and Transportation, i
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. Chandler Place Subdivision Preliminary (June '01)
a. Label existing right-- "previously dedicated."
b. Label flood plain "in" and "out".
. Lots are served by sanitary sewer. (PUBLIC WORKS)
d. Extend water to serve lots. (PUBLIC WORKS)
e. Comply with stormwater detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
f. Comply with curb and gutter requirements. (PUBLIC WORKS)
2. Mobil Addition, Lots 1-C & 1-D [replat] Preliminary (June'01)
a. Remove city limits line. Property is now entirely within the City.
b. Show name of owner of -foot easement along Northwest Freeway.
c. Approval of this plat is conditional upon approval of plat abandonment.
. Lots are served by water. (PUBLIC WORKS)
e. Extend sanitary sewer to serve all lots. (PUBLIC WORKS)
. Comply with stormwater detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
g. Comply with curb and gutter requirements. (PUBLIC WORKS)
3. Smith Walker Addition, Block 1 Preliminary (June'01)
a. Label proposed easements as "herein dedicated."
b. Verify right-of-way width of Echo Lane. City maps show width of 60 feet.
c. Lots are served by water and sewer. (PUBLIC )
,....�,. _........ ........... _....
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 1, 2001 • PAGE 2
�4�9101 11101 VAU k I IlKsif 19•' • • - • i
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 o
the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Bridge Creek Estates, Section 3 (June'01)
a. Provide utility approvals.
b. Show temporary turnaround off north leg of Candlewood Circle as it is
shown on the south end.
c. Extend water and sewer to serve all lots. (PUBLIC WORKS)
d. Construct all internal streets in accordance with City standards. (PUBLIC
WORKS)
e. Comply with stormwater detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
f. All drainage improvements shall comply with criteria for stormwater facilities.
(PUBLIC WORKS)
g. Additional easements along right-of-way required. (TU)
2. Chandler Place Subdivision, Block 1, Lot 1 (June'01)
a. Provide utility approvals.
b. Show right-of-way width of Trig Lane to west of unplatted tract.
c. Indicate "prev. ded."
d. Lot is served by sewer. (PUBLIC WORKS)
e. Extend water to serve lot. (PUBLIC WORKS)
. Comply with stormwater detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
g. Comply with curb and gutter requirements. (PUBLIC WORKS)
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 1, 2001 • PAGE 3
3. Kemp & Newby Subdivision, Block 16, Lots 4, 5, & 6 (June '01)
a. Show place of beginning.
b. Dedicate right-of-way to accommodate existing paved public road on Lot 6.
c. Provide utility approvals.
d. Owner should be aware that Lot 6 has limited buildable area.
e. Lots are served by sewer. (PUBLIC WORKS)
. Extend water to serve lots. (PUBLIC WORKS)
g. Comply with stormwater detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
h. Comply with curb and gutter requirements. (PUBLIC WORKS)
4. Lena Umbarger Subdivision, Block 1, Lots 1 & 2 [replat] (June '01
a. Lot 1 is served by sewer. (PUBLIC WORKS)
. Extend sanitary sewer to Lot 2. (PUBLIC WORKS)
. Lots are served by water. (PUBLIC WORKS)
d. Comply with stormwater detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
S. Mobil Addition, Lot 1-C [replat] (June'01)
a. Remove city limits line. Tract is now entirely within the city.
b. Provide utility approvals.
c. Approval of this plat is conditional upon approval of plat abandonment.
. Lot is served by water. (PUBLIC WORKS)
e. Extend sanitary sewer to serve lot. (PUBLIC WORKS)
. Comply with stormwater detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
6. Turtle Creek Estates, Lot 22 [replat] (June '01)
a. Show street right-of-way dedicated after annexation.
b. Provide utility approvals.
. Provide easement for Equilon Pipeline.
d. Lot is served by water. (PUBLIC WORKS)
e. Lot must be served by an approved sewerage system. (PUBLIC WORKS)
f. Comply with stormwater detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
g. Comply with curb and gutter requirements. (PUBLIC WORKS)
. Additional easement of ten feet along north property line required. ( )
Mr. Sons made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Birck seconded the
motion. The Consent Agenda was approved with a unanimous vote in favor.
VI. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Communications Tower
4729 Jacksboro Highway
Case c 01-27
Report:Staff
ApplicantDennyRedmon, for• Acquisitions,
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 1, 2001 • PAGE 4
Requested Action ........................ Conditional Use Permit for a 85 foot communications
tower with a 5 foot lighting rod, for a total tower height
of 90 feet.
Property....., ................................... Approximately 0.432 acres out of Block 5, Kemp and
Newby Sub., Cherokee School Lands, Wichita Falls,
Texas. Proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Smith Walker
Addition.
Location ....................................... Located 172.5 feet north, and 230 feet east of the
intersection of Jacksboro Highway and Echo Lane.
Existing Land Use........................Contractor's office, zoned LI
Surrounding Land Uses & Zoning N: Big State Grinding, LI
: Dog Grooming & Taxidermy, LI
: Kickapoo Airport, LI
W Offices, Mini -Storage, GC
Commentary:
The applicant is requesting approval of a 90-foot communications tower to be located
on the east portion a tract of land that is being platted. On this tract is a contractor's
Ice; east of the site is adjacent to Kickapoo Airport.
The following narrative compares the applicant's proposal to the requirements the
ordinance.
Conformance With Proposed Zoning District
Proposed tower is within the Light Industrial zoning district. A communication tower
requires a Conditional Use Permit in this zone.
Tower Setbacks From Adjacent Right -of -Way
Distance from the tower to Jacksboro Highway (a minor arterial street) is 230 feet. The
setbacks from the right-of-ways of a minor arterial street are required to be equal to the
tower height (90 feet), or 100 feet minimum whichever is greater.
Distance from the tower to Echo Lane R.O.W. (a local street) is 170 feet. The setbacks
from the right-of-ways of a local street are required to be equal to the tower height (90
feet), or 50 feet minimum whichever is greater.
Applicant's setbacks from adjacent right-of-ways meet Ordinance requirements.
Setbacks From Adjacent Properties
Distance in feet, to adjacent property line of applicant's proposed site:
North property line: 17.5 feet
South property line: 60 feet
East property line: 25 feet
West property line: 230 feet
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 2001 • PAGES
Note All setbacks are required to be equal to the tower height of 90 feet. The
applicant's setbacks from propertylines do not meet Ordinance requirements.
A tower should be setback from property lines, and right-of-ways equal to the height of
the tower, consideration of "fall" characteristics may be used to reduce setback. The
nature of the tower (monopole) does not have a designed "break" point. After review of
the applicant's engineering study, the tower will meet minimum wind load requirements.
Due to the nature of adjacent land uses and zoning district, staff feels that the setbacks
in relation to the tower height proposed is sufficient to accomplish the intent of the
Ordinance.
Setbacks Adjacent To Residences, Single Family Districts
The distance from the nearest residence is 220 feet. The required setback from Single
Family uses is 300 feet. The nearest residence is located south of Echo Lane.
Note: The applicant's setbacks from residential uses do not meet Ordinance
requirements.
The distance from a residential zoning district is 260 feet. The required setback from
Single Family boundaries is 300 feet. The nearest Single Family boundary is west of
Jacksboro Highway.
Note: The applicant's setbacks from residential boundaries do not meet
Ordinance requirements.
The ordinance states that a 100-foot tower should be no closer than 300 feet to nearest
residential use or residential zoning boundary. For every additional foot of height over
100 feet, the tower setback shall increase by 1 foot.
Staff has determined through review of the proposal that the tower will sustain an 80
mile -per -hour wind load with one-half inch radial ice. In addition, the proposed location
is within the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district and adjacent zoning districts are
commercial. The height of the proposed tower does not pose a hazard to any adjacent
residential structure. Being separated from neighboring residential zoning districts by
commercial uses should insure protection of these areas both from a safety and
aesthetic standpoint.
Required Submittals:
1. The applicant has submitted engineering specifications certifying an 80 mph wind
load with'/ inch radial ice.
2. The applicant has submitted an FAA determination showing approval of an
allowed tower height of 90 feet. FAA approval does not consider a city ordinance
requirement.
3. The applicant has submitted the required site plan. However, the plan does not
include:
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 2001 • PAGE 6
a. Landscape Plan: The applicant has not submitted the required landscape
plan. Landscaping shall be required according to Section 6800. Additional
Landscaping shall be required as the tower is within 100 feet of a public right-
of-way and 300 feet from an adjacent land use. Such landscaping shall
screen ground level effects of the tower.
b. Parking and Paving Plan: If a building is provided for human occupation,
parking shall be provided. The applicant's plan does not show the required
paved access or parking. Paved access shall be provided for all towers. A 9-
foot drive shall be considered minimum by staff.
4. The applicant has provided a co -location statement.
5. Elevation drawings: The applicant has supplied the required elevation drawings
for this tower.
Airport Impact Evaluation
The Planning Division has requested Sheppard AFB and Kickapoo Air ark to review
this proposal. They have determined there will be no significant impact.
Conformance with Airport Zoning Regulations
Property is located in a transitional height restriction zone with a maximum allowed
height of 41.6 feet, after adding the 50-foot buffer. The proposed construction exceeds
the Airport Zoning height limit.
Other Site Development requirements
All freestanding tower sites (including monopole towers) must be platted. A plat of the
property has been submitted for approval.
Recommendation®
Due to conflict with the Airport Zoning Regulations because of the tower's presence
within a height transition zone for Kickapoo Airpark, this request will require action by
the Airport Board of Adjustments. Any approval of this application must be conditional
upon favorable action by that board.
End of Staff Report.
Mr. Sons made a motion to approve this communications tower. Ms. Purtle seconded
the motion.
Twelve surrounding property owners were notified of this request. None (0) replied in
favor and two () were opposed. Outside the notification area one 1 replied in favor
and fifteen 1 ) were opposed. Mr. Seese summarized the concerns: 1) decrease i
property values, ) proximity to residences and businesses, 3) safety relating to height
and emissions effects on residents, and 4) proximity to Kickapoo AirPark.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 2001 • PAGE 7
Mr. John Brightmire, representative for the applicant, gave a presentation of the
proposed 85-foot monopole tower with a five foot lightening rod on the top. He stated
that U. S. Cellular needs this site to provide additional coverage for Wichita Falls, and to
off load traffic from other towers. With this location, calls from other towers can be
transferred thus increasing service and providing better service for this area. He further
explained that the fall zone of the monopole, if it were to collapse due to natural causes,
would be a forty foot ') radius with the top portion collapsing first. Sheppard Air
Force Base and Kickapoo AirPark have determined that there would be no significant
impact; FAA determined that this was a no hazard site, also. The location will have an
uninhabited building with paved parking and a gravel sidewalk. He also stated the
compound would be fenced with the appropriate required landscaping. The farthest
residence appears to be 230 feet away.
Mr. Raymond Meyers, 5000 Joyce Lane, stated that his concerns were health hazards
and property valuations. He quoted from a couple of medical journals regarding
medical towers. He invited this group to look at the Microsoft website (cellular towers)
for more information.
Mr. David Joe Meyers, 5000 Joyce Lane, indicated there were discrepancies in the
zoning ordinance regarding setbacks and towers. Mr. Seese stated that while there
appears to be a conflict, our Legal Dept. assures us there is not.
Ms. Barbara Holzer, 5009 Joyce Lane, stated she was in opposition to the tower. She
explained she was opposed to the construction of this tower in an older neighborhood.
Mr. Brightmire responded by stating that U. S. Cellular researched this site extensively,
He stated that the boundaries, property lines, setbacks, fall characteristics, have been
met. He stated he was sympathetic to the health issue and the Telecommunications
Act addresses towers by stating there are no health hazards.
Mr. Brightmire explained the engineers determine a search ring of approximately one-
half mile then there is a process of selecting the actual site; there are many variables,
such as availability, willing lessor, setbacks, zoning, correct acreage, the surrounding
land uses, etc. Mr. Denny Redmon, Land Acquisitions, Inc., explained the procedure in
selecting a site along with cellular technology that also has to be considered. When
asked if the tower could be located out of town, Mr. Redmon stated that it was not
compatible with the surrounding U. S. Cellular towers to alleviate overcrowding signals.
The next topic of discussion was the effect on Kickapoo AirPark. Mr. Seese stated that
the tower does penetrate the 50 foot buffer and, if approved by P&Z, will be required to
Airport Board of Adjustment for approval.
Chairman Rhone stated this is a difficult decision since there are so many unknowns.
Mr. Birck stated he did not think a tower would affect property values of a residential
area.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 1, 2001 • PAGE 8
The tower passed with a vote of seven ) in favor and one opposed.
2. Addition for Wichita Christian School
4729 Neta Lane
Case C 01-29
Applicant ......................................
Dennis Probst, Engineer for the Wichita Christian
School
Requested Action .........................
Conditional Use Permit
Purpose .......................................
To Construct a New Junior High Classroom Building
for Wichita Christian School
Property ......................................4729
Neta Lane, unplatted 0.44 acres out of Block 2,
CCSL
Existing Land Use ........................Vacant,
zoned Single Family
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning
N: Residences, SF-2
S: Wichita Christian School, SF-2
: Residences, SF-2 & Mini -storage & commercial
uses, GC
W: Church, SF-2
Analysis:
This vacant property is located in a single family zoning district, north of Wichita
Christian School on Neta Lane. The school has about 200 students in grades 1 through
6, and a staff of 10.
The school is planning an addition that will be half gymnasium, and half classrooms.
This new building will potentially add 100 more students in grades 7 through 8 and 8
additional staff members. Under the zoning ordinance this would be classified as a
"secondary school," requiring conditional use approval.
The site plan shows that an additional 32 new parking spaces will be provided. Listed
as a "civic use", in the parking section, schools under grade 9 require one parking space
per teacher and staff.
Trip generation estimates by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (I ) predict that
each elementary and junior high student generates one vehicle trip per day. Using this
data, a 30% increase in traffic at peak hours can be anticipated.
OrdinanceRequirements:
Staff reviewed the site plan for conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and noted the
following:
1. A replat of the property is required.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 1, 2001 • PAGE 9
. Provide a six-foot tall privacy fence along the boundary with single-family
uses.
3. Provide landscaping as required by Section 6800 if the Zoning Ordinance.
. Building height shall not exceed 35 feet. The building setback from single-
family properties shall be equal to the height of the building, but not less
than 30 feet.
Recommendation:
The staff recommends approval of this conditional use. Approval of this application
includes the following conditions:
1. The site plan shall be modified to meet ordinance requirements.
End of Staff Report.
Twenty-three surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Three or
13. % replied in favor; four (4) or 1. % were opposed; and one 1) negative
response was received from outside the notification area. Negative comments were
received regarding the increase in traffic on a local residential street.
Mr. Dennis Probst, engineer for the applicant, stated he understood that an addition to
the school would generate more traffic but the architect's has also proposed another
parking lot which should relieve some of the street congestion.
Mr. Mike Koen, architect for the applicant, explained that property on three sides is not
residential in nature [although zoned as F- . The new building will be 60' x 200'
which will include seventh and eighth grade rooms and a gym. The new parking lot will
allow 50 cars access to pick up/drop off children where the present design
accommodates only 14 cars. Enrollment is expected to increase by 20 new students,
totaling 100 students. Mr. Koen further explained, to questioning, that the
improvements will triple the cars' accessibility.
Mr. Roy Gaffert, superintendent of Wichita Christian School, was available for
answering questions.
Mr. James Anthony, 4724 Neta across from the School, stated his concerns about traffic
and parking had been addressed. The noise factor as well as an increase in the trash
problem also were topics he addressed.
Mr. Koen was hopeful that the new gym would decrease some of the noise because the
children could play inside during inclement weather.
Ms. Diane Lockard, 4800 Neta across from the School, cited traffic and parking as
concerns. Neta and Greenbriar are very busy streets with people cutting through to
Jacksboro Highway from Southwest Parkway. Chairman Rhone commented that with
32 parking spaces being added there should be some relief, He suggested staff look
into the congestion on those streets along with the Traffic Department.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 2001 • PAGE 10
Ms. Connie Frisby Griffith, 4801 Greenbriar, stated that frequently it's the parents that
are speeding through the neighborhood to get their children to school on time. She also
stressed that the parking has become such a nuisance that she has trouble getting i
and out of her driveway. It is not uncommon for school activities to have a greater
parking problem and the Church parking lot is not utilized because it is not shaded.
Mr. Gaffert stated that a traffic evaluation by the City has been requested and is
scheduled for this summer.
The vote was eight (8) in favor and none (0) opposed. The conditional use permit was
granted for the school's addition.
3. Notification Plat
Country Club Square, Block 2, Lots 2-C, 3-13, 3-C & 4-B [replat] (June'01)
The property owner has proposed to replat Lots 2-13, 3-A & 4-13, Country Club Square,
an addition to the City of Wichita Falls, Texas, into Lots - , 3-13, 3-C & 4-B. Section
21.15 () of the Local Government Code requires public notification for certain
replats that increase the number of lots and:
1. Within the past five years had zoning limiting the area to single family or duplex use
r,
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 the following standard conditions.
1. Provide utility approvals.
Mr. Birck made a motion to approve this plat. Mr. Rowland seconded the motion.
Twenty-four property owners were notified of this request. Ten (10) replied in favor;
none were opposed; and one (1) outside the notification area responded with no
comment.
Mr. Dennis Probst, representative for the owner, stated that four or five lots were
removed in previous replats and now they plan to increase the lots by one which is still
less than the original number. Mr. Nelson inquired about addressing changes; Mr.
Stillson replied the current addresses should remain the same.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 1, 2001 • PAGE 11
4. Plat Vacation
Rolling Hills Estates, Section Two, Block 7, Lots 22-A & 23-A
The property owner, R. J. Wachsman, is requesting the vacation of his plat relocating
the boundary between two lots. The reason for this vacation is that he has determined
that the replat was not necessary and the lots could be developed as originally
subdivided. When the attached document is approved and filed, the property will revert
to the previous plat. Section 212.013 of the Local Government Code states that:
(a) The proprietors of the tracts covered by a plat may vacate the plat at any time before
any lot in the plat is sold. The plat is vacated when a signed, acknowledged
instrument declaring the plat vacated is approved and recorded in the manner
prescribed for the original plat.
(b) If lots in the plat have been sold, the plat or any part of the plat, may be vacated on
the application of all the owners of lots in the plat with approval obtained in the
manner prescribed for the original plat.
The Planning staff has no objections to this request.
Mr. Nelson made a motion to approve this plat vacation. Mr. Bradberry seconded the
motion.
Mr. Seese stated the applicant wishes to return to the previously approved plat.
The plat vacation was granted with a vote of eight (8) in favor and none (0) opposed.
5. Plat Vacation
Mobil Addition, Lot I -B
This item abandons Lot 1-B of the Mobil Addition. This action is required because the
applicant is replatting only a portion of Lot 1-B lot into Lot 1-C. This will leave a portion
of Lot 1-B that will not be replatted at this time, so that plat must be abandoned. When
the attached document is approved and filed, the property will revert to an unplatted
condition. Section 212.013 of the Local Government Code states that:
(c) The proprietors of the tracts covered by a plat may vacate the plat at any time before
any lot in the plat is sold. The plat is vacated when a signed, acknowledged
instrument declaring the plat vacated is approved and recorded in the manner
prescribed for the original plat.
(d) If lots in the plat have been sold, the plat or any part of the plat, may be vacated on
the application of all the owners of lots in the plat with approval obtained in the
manner prescribed for the original plat.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 13,2001 • PAGE 12
The Planning staff has no objections to this request.
1. This vacation shall be conditional upon the approval of all utility companies having
rights to occupy this easement.
Mr. Rowland made a motion to approve this plat vacation. Ms. Purtle seconded the
motion.
Mr. Probst, representative for the applicant, stated the only development would be on
the front portion of this long lot which is being replatted.
The plat vacation was granted with a vote of eight (8) in favor and none (0) opposed.
6. Carport
1225 Bandera Blvd.
Case C 01-22
Mr. Rowland made a motion to approve this carport request. Mr. Richardson seconded
the motion.
Twenty-one surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Four (4) replied
in favor and none were opposed.
Mr. Tommy Platt, applicant, was present and available to answer any questions.
The carport was approved with a vote of eight (8) in favor and none opposed.
7. Carport
4509 Spencer Drive
Case C 01-23
Mr. Sons made a motion to approve this carport request, with Mr. Nelson offering the
second.
Thirty surrounding property owners were notified of this carport request. Six (6) replied
in favor and none were opposed. Two from outside the notification area responded with
no comment.
Mr. Thomas Kopp, applicant, stated the carport would be constructed of metal.
Eight () replied in favor and none were opposed. The carport was approved.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 1, 2001 • PAGE 13
8. Carport
3303 Arthur Street
Case 01-24
Mr. Sons made a motion to approve with Mr. Richardson offering the second.
This carport has paved access in the rear of the property. It must first be determined if
there is reasonable access to the rear of the property.
Ms. Lauren Welch, applicant, stated there are several carports on this street that are
closer to the street than her would be.
Chairman Rhone stated there is quite a distance from the rear of the property to the
back of the house.
The carport was approved with a vote of eight (8) in favor and none opposed.
9. Manufactured Home
4836 Old Windthorst Road
Case C 01-26
Staff Report.
Applicant ...................................... Russell and Avy Horton
Requested Action .......................... Conditional Use Permit
y,
Purpose ....................................... Manufactured Home
Property ....................................... 4836 Old Windthorst Road
Existing Land Use ........................Vacant Lot
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning. N: Old Windthorst Rd., Vacant Land., -2
S: Mobile Home, SF-2
E: Residence,SF-2
W: Residence, F-2
Analysis:
The applicant is proposing to place to place a new manufactured home at 4840 Old
Windthorst Rd. This area is zoned Single -Family 2 and has residences, mobile homes,
and vacant lots in the area. The proposed manufactured home is compatible with the
neighborhood.
Developmental Requirements:
1,. This project must meet all building code and zoning requirements.
. The manufactured home shall be installed in accordance to Section 5615 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
3. Any drive surfaces on the lot shall be hard -surfaced with HMAC or concrete suitable
for continued use by vehicles of the type intended.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 1, 2001 • PAGE 14
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this project.
End of Staff Report.
Mr. Sons made a motion to approve this request for a manufactured ; Mr. Nelson
seconded the motion.
Seven surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One 1) replied in
favor and none were opposed.
Ms. Avy Horton, applicant, stated that the City requires a concrete slab, which is very
expensive, and a driveway with possibly a sidewalk. The estimated costs to the
applicant will be between $15,000-20,000. There currently are no concrete driveways
or sidewalks; this part of the City was annexed six or seven years ago. She stated she
wanted to comply but these items are expensive. Mr. Seese asked Ms. Horton to meet
with him to address those issues.
The vote was eight (8) in favor and none were opposed.
10. Communications Tower
6307 Seymour Highway
Case C 01-28
Staff Report.
Applicant......................................John Hubbard, Voice Stream Wireless
Requested Action ........................ Conditional Use Permit for a 195-foot communications
tower to locate at 6307 Seymour Highway.
Property................................w...... Lot 1, Block 13, Bartosh Subdivision, a 1.96-acre tract
of land also known as 6307 Seymour Highway.
Location . ..................... .......... pa.®W... Proposed to locate 195 feet southeast of Seymour
Highway, close to the intersection of Seymour
Highway and Kell Freeway.
Existing Land Use ........................ Self -Storage Facility and Vacant Commercial
Building.
Surrounding Land Uses & Zoning N: Vacant Office and Storage, GC
S: Kell Freeway, LI
E: Outdoor Storage, LI
W: Equipment Rentals, LI
Commentary.
The applicant is requesting approval of a communications tower to be located on the
west portion a tract of land that is platted and currently is used as a self -storage facility.
The property is located between Seymour Highway and Kell Freeway.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 2001 • PAGE 15
The
following - compares the applicant's proposal to the requirementsof
ordinance.
Conformance With The Zoning District
The proposal is located within a Light Industrial (I) zoning district. A communication
tower is permitted with the approval of a conditional use permit.
Tower Setbacks From Adjacent Right -of -Way
Distance from the tower to Seymour Highway R.O.W (a major arterial street) is 195 feet,
and 295 feet from Kell Freeway. The tower height is the minimum setback from all
R.O.W. lines.
Applicant's setbacks from adjacent right-of-ways meets Ordinance requirements.
Setbacks From Adjacent Properties
Distance in feet, to adjacent property line:
North property line: 195 feet
South property line: 295 feet
East property line: 148 feet
West property line: 15 feet
Note: All setbacks are required to be equal to the tower height of 195 feet. The
applicant's setbacks from property lines do not meet Ordinance requirements.
A tower should be setback from property lines, and right-of-ways equal to the height of
the tower, consideration of "fall" characteristics may be used to reduce setback. The
nature of the tower (monopole) does not have a designed "break" point. After review of
the applicant's engineering study, the tower will meet minimum wind load requirements.
Due to the nature of adjacent land uses and zoning district, staff feels that the setbacks
in relation to the tower height proposed is sufficient to accomplish the intent of the
Ordinance.
Setbacks Adjacent To Residences, Single Family Districts
A 100-foot tower should be no closer than 300 feet to nearest residential use or
residential zoning boundary. For every additional foot of height over 100 feet, the tower
setback shall increase by 1 foot.
Distance from nearest residential zoning district 1645 feet. The required setback from
single-family zoning boundaries and uses is 395 feet.
Distance from nearest residential use is 270 feet. The required setback from a single-
family use is 395 feet.
Note: The applicant's setback from a residential use does not meet Ordinance
requirement.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 2001 • PAGE 16
Staff has determined through review of the proposal that the tower will sustain an 80
�rmile-per-hour wind load with one-half inch radial ice. In addition, the proposed location
is within the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district. There is an existing residence within this
district that is nonconforming because residential is not allowed in an LI district. After
reviewing the Nonconforming DevelopmentRegulations, it is the intent that
nonconforming uses eventually be discontinued. There has been no residential
development or inquiries for residential development in this area to conclude that
rezoning to accommodate residential uses are forthcoming in the future. In addition, the
proposal is in conformance with the Land Use Plan, where residential uses would not.
Required Submittals:
1. The applicant must submit engineering specifications certifying an 80 mph wind
load with % inch radial ice. Such plans are being reviewed.
2. The applicant must submit an FAA determination showing approval of an allowed
tower height of 195 feet. The FAA has determined that the proposal does not
exceed the requirements under Part 77 FAR.
3. The applicant must submit a landscape plan - The applicant has not submitted
the required landscape plan. Landscaping shall be required according to Section
6800. Additional Landscaping shall be required as the tower is within 100 feet of
a public right-of-way and 300 feet from an adjacent land use. Such landscaping
shall screen ground level effects of the tower.
. Parking and paving plan. If a building is provided for human occupation, parking
shall be provided. No building will be used for occupation, therefore no parking
will be required. Paved access shall be provided for all towers. A 9-foot drive
shall be considered minimum by staff.
5. The applicant has provided a co -location statement.
6. Elevation drawings. The applicant has supplied the required elevation drawings
for this tower.
Airport Impact Evaluation
The Planning Division has notified Sheppard AFB and Kickapoo Airpark of this
proposal. They have determined that no significant impact will occur.
Conformance with Airport Zoning Regulations
Property is not located in a transitional height restriction zone
Other Site Development requirements
All freestanding tower sites (including monopole towers) must be platted. This property
is platted.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 1, 2001 • PAGE 17
There are elements of this application that do not meet the provisions of communication
tower regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the Ordinance allows staff latitude
in making administrative decisions. Staff feels that the proposed location, the type of
tower, the affected zoning districts, and the nature of adjacent land uses warrant
consideration toward allowing the proposal as submitted. Staff will still need to approve
the site plan, noting the missing elements to that plan as described herein.
Staff recommends approval.
End of Staff Report.
Mr. John Hubbard, applicant, gave a presentation explaining the tower, its construction,
the site plan and accompanying details. This tower will be able to handle three and
possibly four carriers.
The vote was eight (8) in favor and none opposed.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
1. City Council Update
a. Appeal by WFISD of Video Arcade at 1410 Beverly Drive
Mr. Seese stated the Conditional Use Appeal was denied by City Council. Chairman
Rhone stated that Councilor Burns did support the decision of the Planning & Zoning
Commission and made an impressive argument for the case.
b. Rezoning of the Northwest Corner of Barnett and Southwest Parkway
Mr. Seese stated that Council approved this rezoning request.
Vill. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 4:03 p.m.
David Rhone, Chairman
ATTEST:
g Administrator
Date
a
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 1, 2001 • PAGE 18