Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 12/12/2001ql I MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION C 71 > T 1 PRESENT: David Rhone, Chairman • Members Cliff Berg • Ken Birck • L. . Nelson • Susan Wood Reeves • Danny Richardson • Bill Rowland (did not stay for meeting — lack of seating) • Rusty Sons • J. C. Bradberry • Alternate #1 Jim Chase • Alternate #2 Johnny Burns, Councilor • Liaison Steve Seese, Planning Administrator • staff Marty Odom, Planner I • ABSENT: Lin Purtle • 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. Sons made a motion to approve the November 14, 2001 minutes; Mr. Richardson seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote in favor. IV. CONSENT AGENDA Preliminary Plats — none submitted. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2001 • PAGE 11 11 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: • Provide utility and drainage easements as required by utility companies and the Director of Public Works. • Submit water and sewer plans; street; sidewalk; and drainage In 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. Recommend approval subject to standard conditions and any specific conditions listed below: 1. Jefferson Park Addition, Lot 1 (Dec.'01) a. Submit utility slips. b. Show building limit line along Johnson Road. c. Additional easements may be required. (TXU) d. Comply with current requirements of stormwater detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS) Note: This tract lacks street frontage. It is part of a land exchange between the City and the WFSID and this plat is for conveyance proposes only. This property will be replatted with adjacent lands that have street frontage. 2. Stone Lake Estates, Phase 3, Lot 5, Block 20 (Dec. '01) a. Provide utility slips. b. Provide surveyor's signature and seal. c. Correct building limit line along Stone Lake Drive. Line is drawn at 25' but is labeled as 40'. d. This lot is zoned Single Family-2. A church use will require a conditional use permit. e. Extend sewer to serve lot. (PUBLIC WORKS) f. Extend water to serve lot. (PUBLIC WORKS) g. Comply with current requirements of the stormwater detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS) Mr. Richardson made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda; Mr. Bradberry seconded the motion. The Consent Agenda was approved with a unanimous vote in favor. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12,2001 * PAGE 2 V. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Rezone from SF-2 to IVIF 2912 & 2914 Radney Case R 01 -11 Applicant ....................................... John Buckley, Board of Director of Fountain Park Pool, Inc. Requested Action ................ ....... Rezoning from SF-1 to MFR Purpose ........................................... Future Commercial Development Property ................... .......................... 2912 & 2914 Radney Lane Legal Description ................. ....... 2912 Radney, being the South 75 ft. of Lot 9, Block 19, of the 2nd Supplement, Fountain Park 2A1, Addition to the City of Wichita Falls, Wichita County, Texas 2914 Radney, being the north 208' Ft of Lot 9, Block 19, of the 2nd Supplement, Fountain Park 2A1, Addition to the City of Wichita Falls, Wichita County, Texas. Existing Land Use ........................... Fountain Park Pool, pool house, pool and associated parking Surrounding Land Uses & Zoning N: Residences, SF-1 E: Residences, SF-1 S: Rolling Meadows, MFR W: Rolling Meadows, MFR Analysis: The property owners, Fountain Park Pool, Inc., are requesting rezoning from SF-1 to Multifamily for this tract of land containing the Fountain Park pool, pool house and associated parking. In October 2000, the south 134 feet of the Fountain Park Pool property was rezoned to Multifamily Residential and sold to Rolling Meadows. The applicant's are closing the pool and selling the pool facilities, as they can no longer operate at a profit. It is the applicant's plan to sell the property to Rolling Meadows. Rolling Meadows stated that they would fence the property by using a metal fence matching the existing. When they acquired the previous tract in 2000 Rolling Meadows applied for a variance to continue with the metal fencing rather than the required wood. A variance was granted on November 2000 permitting the metal fence. However, the fence was not installed within 180 days after approval, and the variance approval has lapsed. a. Chanced 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. The pool has ceased operation and is selling their land to Rolling Meadows. According the present owners, the pool membership income no longer covers the operating expenses. The only changed condition in the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12,2001 • PAGE 3 neighborhood has been the rezoning of the property to the south to Multifamily last year. 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 this tract as Open Space, based on the existing Fountain Park Pool. Although the Plan shows an Open Space designation, the tract is presently zoned Single Family-1. The Land Use Plan should be amended to designate this lot "High Density Residential." c. The nature and -dearue of imoact Won neigh bo[jn�land�s: The major change anticipated by this rezoning will be the planned construction of a metal fence along the property line adjacent to the street, most affecting the view of the adjacent neighbors. Since the previous variance to construct a metal fence has expired, a new application must be approved before any metal fencing can be installed. Recommendation: Staff has some concerns about the visual impact of this development, because of the planned fence. If the fence is built as planned at least three homes will have a view of a metal fence along the street opposite their homes. However, that concern cannot be addressed in a rezoning request. Staff is more concerned about the compatibility of a multifamily use in an area historically a single-family neighborhood. If this property would be an extension of the Rolling Meadows facility used for parking or open space, there should be a low impact as to noise and traffic. If however, there develops another apartment complex, especially a multi -story structure, the impacts could be substantial. Due to the concerns listed above, staff recommends disapproval of this request. Mr. Sons made a motion to recommend approval to City Council of this rezoning; Mr. Chase seconded the motion. Mr. Seese recommended the applicant rezone this property to Planned Unit Development (PUD). Twenty-one surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One (1) replied in favor, twelve (12) were opposed, and eight (8) outside the notification area ssubmitted opposing replies. Chairman Rhone asked the applicant if he would be interested in tabling his request. Mr. John Canberra, applicant representing the board of directors for Fountain Park Pool, Inc., stated the pool is financially unable to continue operations. He stated he was not ar aware of the option of a PUD, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER12,2001 ® PAGE Mr. Seese explained the requirements for the zoning change to a PUD. Mr. Berg asked if the site plan must be submitted when the application is filed for a PUD. Mr. Seese commented that a conceptual site plan would suffice. Ms. Reeves asked if a PUD has the same fencing requirement; Mr. Seese replied there would be other options. Tabling the rezoning case was discussed. Mr. Henry Dvorkin, buyer and chairman of the board of Rolling Meadows, objects to having this case withdrawn (tabled). Mr. Buckley stated he wished to proceed with the rezoning application. Mr. Dvorkin described the single -story cottage expansion planned for this property. He also claimed that Rolling Meadows was the only logical buyer and the property does not lend itself for efficient development. He asked the homeowners to not stand in the way of reasonable progress. Mr. Nelson commented that this Commission must consider that today's intentions for the use of this land after it is rezoned could change in the future. He also noted another concern was that the homeowners would still be looking at a fence if cottages were built. Mr. Otto Jones, 4303 Sutton, expressed concerns regarding the fence, and the fact that other land uses would not be desirable. He also mentioned there might be other interested buyers. When questioned, Mr. Jones stated cottage -style buildings would not be objectionable. Mr. Harold Apple, 2913 Radney, stated he was directly across the street from the driveway of the property. He commented that cottages would be agreeable but multi- story buildings would not be favored. He further stated that as long as the rezoning does not specifically require single story then he and other neighbors would be opposed. Mr. Dvorkin stated he would not be pleased with multi -storied buildings across the street from his house. He commented the intention is to build four units, or two duplexes, resembling the current buildings. He asked if the Commission could place restrictions to permit only single to buildings. Mr. Seese stated that was the purpose of suggesting a zoning change to PUD. Mr. Dvorkin asked about the fencing problem; Mr. Seese responded that it would be resolved. Mr. Lane Landis, 4307 Sutton Circle, stated that Rolling Meadows has erected a metal fence behind his house which is not only an eyesore, but also has created a drainage problem. Major Matt Coons, 3003 Radney Lane, stated he recently purchased the home across from the pool. He mentioned his concerns were the rezoning to multii-family, consideration of using the property as a greenbelt, the fence, difference in roof line pitch, and security. He also commented that the area Councilor, Linda Ammons, and Jack Murphy, Director of Parks, attended a recent neighborhood meeting where they made suggestions for other uses of that property. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER12,2001 • PAGES Mr. Buckley withdrew the rezoning application. 2. Proposal to Rename a Portion of Lake Park Drive to Taft Boulevard This is a proposal to rename a portion of Lake Park Drive to Taft Boulevard. Analysis: In 1985, Taft Boulevard was extended across Southwest Pkwy and connected with Lake Park Drive. In 1992, the bridge on Lake Park Drive crossing Holiday Creek was removed to accommodate the Holliday Creek improvement project. This left a continuous single street from Southwest Pkwy. to FM 2380 (Old Lake Rd.). A small portion of this street is named Taft Blvd. and the remainder is named Lake Park Drive. At present there is no distinct indicator as to where Taft Blvd. ends and where Lake Park Dr. begins. Staff feels that the best solution to this problem is to officially change the name of Lake Park Drive to Taft Boulevard. Presently, there are 19 lots along Lake Park Dr. that have a Lake Park Dr. street address. Most are vacant undeveloped lots. There are three lots with houses. One lot has a house currently being built. These existing residents will have to change their dress, however, the house numbers will remain the same and only the street name will change. Mr. Berg made a motion to recommend approval to City Council to rename this street to Lake Park Drive. Mr. Sons seconded the motion. There was discussion of the naming of this street and its history. Councilor Burns commented that when Holliday Creek was constructed, it divided Lake Park Drive. The vote was unanimous in favor of recommending approval of this name change. VI. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Amendments to Section 4600, Zoning Ordinance Screening Regulations Mr. Seese stated that recently three cases have been presented to the Zoning Board of Adjustments because of problems with this ordinance. There are some unfair provisions not allowing adaptations to some situations. These changes will make this ordinance more permissive by allowing alternate fencing materials and, in certain instances, not requiring fencing. Mr. Sons made a motion to recommend approval to City Council to amend Section 4600 of the Zoning Ordinance; Mr. Richardson seconded the motion. The recommendation was passed with a unanimous vote in favor. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 2001 • PAGE 6 2. City Council Update — there were no items VII. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. David Rhone, Chairman ATTEST: Date Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator Date PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2001 • PAGE 7