Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 07/11/20014 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JuIv ® 2001 PRESENT: David Rhone, Chairman • Members Cliff Berg • L. O. Nelson • Lin Purtle • Danny Richardson • Ken Birck • Alternate #1 J. C. Bradberry • Alternate#2 Johnny Burns, Councilor • Liaison David A. Clark, Director of Community Development • staff Steve Seese, Planning Administrator • Paul Stillson, Planner II • Marty Odom, Planner I • ABSENT: Susan Wood Reeves Members Bill Rowland • I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Rhone at 2:00 p.. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the audience wished to address the Commission. III. 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: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 11, 2001 • PAGE 1 Recommendapproval• •standardconditions•any specificfor final plats listed R` • • 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. Kemp & Newby, Lots 4, 5, & 6, Block 16 (July'01) a. Lots are served by sewer. (PUBLIC WORKS) b. Extend water to serve lots. (PUBLIC WORKS) c. Comply with stormwater detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS) . Comply with curb and gutter ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS) . Conform to current state rules if septic system is used. (HEALTH) Public Hearing on Final Plats Recommend approval subject to standard conditions and any specific conditions listed below: • Provide utility and drainage easements as required by utility companies and the Director of Public Works. • Submit water and sewerplans; street; sidewalk; and drainage plans to the Director of Public Works and water plans to the Fire Marshall. 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 Transportation, if underground electric utilities are to be provided. 1. Wichita Christian School Addition, Block 1, (July '01) - withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting. 2. County Farm Addition, Lots 2-F & 2-G (July '01) a. Provide utility slips. . Provide surveyor's signature and seal. c. Lots are served by water and sewer. (PUBLIC WORKS) PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 11, 2001 • PAGE 2 d. Comply with requirements of stormwater detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS) 3. Hill & Hill Heights, Section Two, Unit Four, Block 2, Lots 19-24 (July'01) a. Provide utility slips. . Provide surveyor's signature and seal. . Extend water and sewer to serve all lots. (PUBLIC WORKS) d. Construct street in accordance with City of Wichita Falls standards. (PUBLIC WORKS) e. Comply with stormwater detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS) 4. Kemp & Newby Subdivision, Lot 5, Block 16 (July'01) . Provide utility slips. b. Provide surveyor's signature and seal. (PUBLIC WORKS) c. Lot is served with sewer. (PUBLIC WORKS) . Extend water to serve lot. (PUBLIC WORKS) . Comply with curb and gutter requirements. (PUBLIC WORKS) f. If they plan to use a septic system, they must conform to current state law. (HEALTH) Mr. Birck made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda, with Mr. Berg offering the second. The vote was six () in favor and none (0) opposed. IV. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Request for 220 Foot Communications Tower 206 Indiana Street Case C 01-30 Applicant: Laddie C. Galloway, Titan Towers, Requested action: Conditional Use Permit for a 220 foot communications tower to locate at 206 Indiana Street. Property: Lot 5A, Block 103, Original Townsite Location: Proposed to locate on a 150' x 150' lot in the center of the 200 block of Indiana Street between 2 "d and Existing Land Use: Surrounding Land Uses & Zoning streets. Vacant Lot N: Airgas Warehouse and Distribution, LI Patton Tanks and Sheet Metal, LI Industrial Distributor & Outdoor Storage, LI Auto sales, RDD PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 11, 2001 • PAGE 3 The applicant is requesting approval of a communications tower to be located on Lot 5- A, Block 103, Original Townsite. This is currently a vacant platted lot surrounded by general commercial and light industrial uses. The City recently enacted additional requirements for communications towers that regulate the height and setback of towers, antennas and structures. The following narrative compares the applicant's proposal to the requirements of the ordinance. Conformance With The Zoning Ordinance: Zoning — Light Industrial, a communication tower is permitted with the approval of a conditional use permit. ... - @ -MI Tower Setbacks From Adjacent Right -Of -Way. Distance from the tower to Indiana St R.O.W (collector street) is 75 feet to the center of the tower. Distance from 2nd and 3rd Street R.O.W. (collector streets) is 175 feet to the center of the tower. Distance from Scott St. (Major Arterial) is 250' to the center of the tower. The minimum setback to adjacent right-of-ways for this tower is 220' (height oft r), unless it can be shown that the tower is engineered in such a way that a collapse of the tower would not result in tower debris extending beyond the property lines. The applicant has submitted a letter from Sabre Communications Co. stating that the tower is designed so that "....in the event of failure the tower would most likely collapse on the property around the base of the tower within a radius of approximately % of the tower height." 3% of 220' is . '. If constructed as stated, the tower will comply with the ordinance. This break point will be confirmed at the submittal of building plans. Setbacks From Adjacent Properties: Distance in feet, to adjacent property line: North property line: South property line: East property line: West property line: 75 feet to center 75 feet to center 75 feet to center 75 feet to center The minimum setback to adjacent properties for this tower is 220' (height of r), unless it can be shown that the tower is engineered in such a way that a collapse of the tower would not result in tower debris extending beyond the property lines. The applicant has submitted a letter from Sabre Communications Co. stating that the tower is designed so that "...in the event of failure the tower would most likely collapse on the property around the base of the tower within a radius of approximately % of the tower height." % of 220' is '. If constructed as stated, the tower will comply with the ordinance. This break point will be confirmed at the submittal of building plans. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 1, 2001 • PAGE 4 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. This makes the setback for this tower 420 feet from residences and residential zoning boundaries. Required Submittals: 1A The applicant must submit engineering specifications certifying an 80 mph wind load with Y2inch radial ice. 2. The applicant has submitted a FAA determination showing approval of an allowed tower height of 220 feet. 3. The applicant has submitted the required landscape plan, however, a revised landscaping plan is needed to show screening of the ground -level appearance of the tower and apparatuses. 4. If a building is provided for human occupation, parking shall be provided. The applicant's plan does 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. 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 to review this proposal. Their determination of impact has not yet been received. (Determinations were received and reported to P&Z) 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. Recommendation: If the applicant submits the required engineering data for wind load and collapse radius, the project will meet the ordinance requirements. Staff recommends approval of this project. End of Staff Report. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 11, 2001 * PAGE 5 Mr. Richardson made a motion to approve this request for a communications tower. Mr. Nelson seconded. Fifteen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One (1) replied i favor and five ( were opposed. The main concern was development of downtown. Mr. Seese stated that Sheppard Air Force Base submitted comments that they would not have a problem as long as the tower did not exceed 220 feet. He suggested that be a condition of approval. He also recommended that the breaking point of the tower not be greater than % of the tower height, or 72.5 feet. Mr. David Baker, Titan Towers from Abilene, stated he was available to answer any questions. He also stated he would comply with the conditions. Mr. Mark Toby, property owner across from tower location, stated the tower could deter development on the east side of Indiana Street. He felt this would not enhance restaurant and hotel location in that area. Ms. Purtle arrived after the meeting began. Chairman Rhone asked Mr. Baker if other locations had been considered. He explained he was not operating a network of telephones or radios. Titan Towers is a commercial tower construction and management company. This company identifies areas where future coverage requirements may be needed then rent the space. This tower will accommodate six suppliers. He has two potential companies interested in leasing space on this tower. Mr. Nelson stated he was concerned about the speculative nature of tower building. He suggested the groups needing towers should organize the construction and sharing of towers. He also expressed a concern for not utilizing existing structures instead of constructing new towers. Mr. Baker explained that several buildings do support antennas but that can cause technical problems when antennas start radiating into one another, access to rooftops, and height requirements since Wichita Falls does not have extremely tall buildings. He commented on Mr. Nelson's suggestion by stating that different carriers operate at different frequencies, different marketing requirements, and different technical requirements. They also are competitive and are not willing to share information between companies. By investing a significant amount of capital in the construction of a tower, it minimizes the speculative aspect because pre -marketing efforts help determine the location. This tower is equipped to handle six co -users in addition to omni antennas fortwo-way radios and pagers. The aesthetic concerns of a location should be balanced against the practical requirements of providing cellular and wireless internet service. Several providers will have mounting space on this tower which precludes constructing more towers to provide this same amount of service. Having the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 11, 2001 • PAGE 6 availability of a variety of communication services will enhance the development of an area. Mr. Toby suggested a more appropriate use of the land would be for support businesses and facilities for MPEC, restaurants, hotels, etc., rather than internet services. He noted that the tower would hinder development toward the east. The river corridor should be protected for commercial development to bring people to Wichita Falls. Chairman Rhone concurred that the reason that area is zoned River Development District is to attract support facilities. Mr. Birck stated the ideal situation would be to locate these towers on the outskirts of town but that does not seem to be possible for efficient transmission. Phones and equipment using these towers become more important to citizens and businesses daily. Chairman Rhone asked if this was similar to the case heard before the tower moratorium took place. Mr. Seese stated it was the same applicant but not the same location. Mr. Clark explained the process was established during the moratorium to organize tower location in the City. The appropriate zones were defined, the conditional use procedure was created for towers in certain zones, and the regulatory process from Sheppard Air Force Base and Kickapoo AirPark was established. Mr. Birck also mentioned the area of and around MPEC will also be dependent on the services provided by such towers, as well as the event participants. Mr. Nelson mentioned that he thought these service suppliers could be located on the buildings in the downtown area to avoid constructing another tower. Mr. Birck inquired about the demand for space on this tower. Mr. Baker stated there was no way to predict through the pre -marketing efforts because many of the companies have not engineered their future sites. Mr. Baker acknowledged the locations are studied for their zoning and technical advantages and this site was better than others. Mr. Berg asked what other cities are doing; does tower construction inhibit development or do the towers go unnoticed? Mr. Seese stated there is more stealth technology and towers situated on buildings in the more metropolitan areas. He also stated that he has not heard of towers hampering development. Mr. Clark stated if the tower were to be located in the middle of the RDD, he would have a different attitude about it; he also stated he was not aware of other communities having problems with tower construction. Mr. Nelson stated that realistically Titan Towers has the right idea but there should be more planning to locate towers within areas of less impact but still provide coverage. He stated he was not opposed to the concept of building the tower with shareable space on i, but the location is the problem. The vote was six () in favor and one (1) opposed. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 11, 2001 • PAGE 7 2. Request for Eight Liner Video Game Arcade 4706 Brookdale Drive Case C 01-31 Staff : Applicant Qazi A.Islam Requested Action Conditional Use Permit Purpose "8 Liner" Video Arcade Games Property 4706 Brookdale, Suite 2 Zoning General Commercial Existing Land Use Commercial Plaza Surrounding Land Use & Zoning N: CITGO Convenience Store, GC S: Vacant Lot, GC E: Vacant Lot, Auto Repair, Self Storage, GC W: Residences, SF2 Analysis: The applicant wishes to occupy space within a 5 unit commercial plaza at 4706 Brookdale Dr. for an "eight liner" type arcade. The arcade will consist of up to 25 machines that will dispense tickets redeemable for prizes or gift certificates. This activity requires a conditional use permit in General Commercial when it is within 200 feet of a residence, school, or a residential zoning boundary, or occupies more than 25% of the building in which it is located. The applicant will occupy 945 sq. ft. of a 4998 sq. ft building. This is less than 25% of the building. However, this location is within 200 feet of residences. This plaza presently has four businesses: TMD Temporaries, Color Design Salon, Luknet Computers, and Parsons Business Forms Data Products. None. This is a developed lot. Recommendation: Staff has concerns about potential parking problems on this site. The parking consists of 19 regular parking spaces and two handicap spaces. Twenty-five machines occupied could potentially generate the need for twenty-five spaces. If a conditional use permit is approved by this Commission, staff recommends: 1. Additional parking spaces be required; or 2. The maximum number of machines in this establishment be limited; or 3. The hours of operation be set in order to not interfere with the existing commercial activity at this address. End of Staff Report. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 11, 2001 • PAGE 8 Sixteen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. None (0) replied i favor, six (6) were opposed, and three from outside the notification area sent in opposing replies. Mr. Birck made a motion to approve this conditional use request. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion. Mr. Qazi Islam, applicant, stated that he originally wanted to place 25 machines in this business but since there is not enough parking, he would be willing to put in four or five machines in the beginning. Chairman Rhone stated that there is opposition from the surrounding property owners regarding parking, security, alcohol, etc. He asked if there would be a full-time employee to monitor activity and not admit minors. Mr. Islam stated there would be. Chairman Rhone asked if additional machines were added in the future, how would that be monitored. Mr. Seese reported that occupancy and land use is usually not monitored; the only opportunity to look at land use and their impact is during the conditional use process. In response to questioning, Mr. Islam stated his hours of operation will depend on when the customers come; he mentioned opening 10 a.m. or noon and closing around midnight. Citizens voicing opposing opinions were: Debbie Roebuck, concerned business owner in same center, i Scott Storm, outside the notification area, Rex Parsons, concerned business/property owner in same center, Delores Culley, concerned business owner in same center, and Eddie Graves, concerned business/property owner in same center. Their concerns consisted of: Parking, Afraid of losing business, Type of customers this business would attract, Safety and security issues, Improper building design for this type of business, Electrical service to accommodate 25 machines, Increased trash, Littering of cigarettes and cigarette butts around walkway and flower beds, Infiltration of gangs, No handicap parking, Property values, Drifting of second-hand smoke throughout the center, and Building designed for small businesses or professional offices, not entertainment usage. Mr. Paul Hughes, property owner, stated that he did not think the zoning restrictions would permit this type of business but told the applicant to research i. He was PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 11, 2001 • PAGE 9 surprised to find this property is zoned General Commercial. He stated that he has not heard from any of the disgruntled surrounding property owners. Ms. Purtle stated that she has had calls regarding the concerns of the neighbors about this business. She stated she could not support the approval of this business locating in this center. She was unable to stay for the continuation of the meeting. Mr. Clark referenced the Zoning Ordinance regarding the criteria used by the Commission in making a decision regarding the conditional use process: "Potentially unfavorable effects or impacts on other existing or permitted uses on abutting sites to the extent such impacts exceed those which reasonably may result from the use of the site by a permitted use." He stated this is an area where judgment could be considered in making the decision about a case. Chairman Rhone asked the applicant if he has looked at other sites. Mr. Islam stated that there are surrounding businesses with those machines. To questioning, he responded that he has other businesses with eight liners in them. None are operating as strictly arcades; they are incidental to the main income of the business. Chairman Rhone explained circumstances in which the conditional use permit could be revoked. Mr. Islam stated he would be agreeable to the hours of operation being limited but not limiting the number of machines. Mr. Birck stated that he thought this location was not adaptable to this business. He felt the lease -rights of the other tenants would be infringed upon. He stated he was opposed to this use. Mr. Bradberry agreed with Mr. Birck. Mr. Berg stated he did not think it was to Mr. Islam's advantage to locate there; he should be considering space with ample parking for this type of business. Mr. Nelson stated there is only one entrance to the parking lot which creates a severe bottleneck with ingress and egress. He stated overflow parking might result to street parking. He was not in favor of this request. The vote was none in favor and six () opposed. V. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Discussion of Proposed Amendment Addressing Weather Shades Over Vehicle Sales Lots, Playgrounds, and Other Approved Situations. Mr. Seese stated this issue concerns the shaded awnings over cars at a dealership. Staffs recommendation is favorable for allowing these shades. Some of the details discussed were the use of single colors, no advertising or logos, and other aesthetic regulations. Mr. Johann Devol, representative for one of the shade manufacturers, gave a presentation. He suggested: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 11, 2001 • PAGE 10 1. Limit the size of the shade to 2,000 square feet. 2. Structure should be constructed of steel. 3. Anchoring should be to two -foot diameter posts bolted to a three-foot depth of concrete. Bolting to its own foundation or another existing foundation should not be allowed. It was decided to submit the final version of the ordinance to the Commission prior to their August meeting. 2. City Council Update Mr. Clark stated the tower at 4729 Jacksboro Highway approved at the last meeting did not receive a variance for a 90-foot structure at the Airport Board of Adjustment meeting. The maximum height is limited to 62.8 feet. A petition was received and is being appealed at the July 17th City Council meeting. 3. Staff Discussion Mr. Seese announced the ordinance regarding recreational vehicle parks would also be in the August agenda book. VI. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 4:14 p.m. David Rhone, Chairman ATTEST: City Planning Administrator .'."... Date Da .,,, m . t PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 11, 2001 • PAGE 11