Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 06/08/2022 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 8, 2022 PRESENT: David Cook •Chairman Michael Grassi •Member Blake Haney • Member Steve Lane *Member Mark McBurnett • SAFB Liaison Doug McCulloch *Member Wayne Pharries •Member Jeremy Woodward • Vice-Chair Councilor Whiteley • Council Liaison James McKechnie, Deputy City Attorney •City Staff Paul Menzies, Assistant City Manager •City Staff Terry Floyd, Development Services Director •City Staff Karen Montgomery-Gagne, Principal Planner •City Staff Christal Ashcraft, Development Services Admin. Assist. •City Staff Cedric Hu, Planning Technician • City Staff ABSENT: Noros Martin • Member Cayce Wendebom • Member Steve Wood •Alternate No.1 GUEST: Jana Schmader, Director of Downtown Wichita Falls Development, Inc. I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Mr. David Cook, at 2:00 p.m. Chairman Cook proceeded to make the following comments: a. This meeting is being televised live on Channel 1300. It will be replayed at 2:00 p.m. daily including Saturday and Sunday until the next live meeting is aired which will be the second Wednesday of next month at 2:00 p.m. b. Motions made by the Commission members include all staff recommendations and developmental requirements listed in the staff report. Any deviations will be discussed on a case-by-case basis and voted on accordingly. c. Applicants and citizens who wish to address the Commission or answer questions from the Commission members are asked to please speak into the Planning and Zoning 2 June 8, 2022 microphone at the podium. This meeting is being taped and there is no microphone to record statements made from the audience. d. Commission members, when speaking please remember to press the button to turn on your microphone. e. Please silence all cell phones during the meeting. If it is necessary for you to have a cell phone conversation during the meeting, please use the hallway outside this room. Ill. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Cook asked if there were any comments from the public. With no response, Mr. Cook closed public comments. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Doug McCulloch made a motion to adopt the May 11, 2022, minutes. Mr. Blake Haney seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously, 7-0 VII. CONSENT AGENDA Case C 22-09 — 2001 G Southwest Parkway: Consider taking action on a conditional use to allow a 20ft. addition to an existing 105ft, communication tower in a General Commercial (GC) zoning district. Applicant/Owner: Crafton Communication Inc. Chairman Cook asked if anyone had an item to be moved to the regular agenda. Nothing to be moved. Mr. Jeremy Woodward made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Michael Grassi seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0. VIII. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Case C 22-11 — 808 Dallas Street: Consider taking action on a conditional use to allow a carport in the required front setback in a Single Family-2 (SF-2) zoning district. Applicant/Owner: Kresti Mason Mr. Pharries made a motion to approve the case. Mr. Haney seconded the motion. Mr. Cedric Hu presented the case and stated the owner, Ms. Kresti Mason, had met with staff regarding her proposal to construct a 20ft. X 17ft. carport in the front setback of her home located at 808 Dallas Street. Mr. Hu stated the construction plans so the proposed carport to be placed within the first 5ft. of the property line, triggering this case to come before the Commission for a conditional approval. Planning and Zoning 3 June 8, 2022 The residential subject property was located in the eastern part of Wichita Falls, between East Scott Avenue and the railroad tracks. Mr. Hu advised the property line was approximately 10ft. from the sidewalk and therefore the carport could not be built closer without impacts to the right-of-way on Dallas Street. Mr. Hu stated the 20ft. X 17ft. carport would be constructed to the front property line and 11ft, from the side property line to the east. The overall height of the carport will be 8ft. supported by 4 columns. Photos of the subject property showed the residential property was in a residential subdivision, in a Single Family-2 (SF-2) zoning district. Staff notified 26 property owners and received a total of 3 response forms back, all in favor of this proposal. Staff recommends approval of this Conditional Use carport request for 808 Dallas Street with the following conditions: 1. Further site plan review by planning and building inspections at the time of permitting for construction to verify conformance with Sec. 4220 and all other applicable code and ordinances. Chairman Cook asked if the applicant was present and wished to make a presentation. The applicant, was present, but wished to give no presentation. Mr. Cook asked if there were any comments from the public. Chairman Cook closed the public comments and opened the floor for the Commission. Mr. Doug McCulloch asked how close the curb would the carport be constructed. Mr. Hu advised 10ft. from the sidewalk. With no other questions Chairman Cook called for a vote. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 7-0. 2. Case C 22-12 — 312 Hilltop Avenue: Consider taking action on a conditional use to allow for the expansion of a non-conforming use, single family, in a Light Industrial (U) zoning district. Applicant/Owner: Gerardo & Elizabeth Garcia Mr. McCulloch made a motion to approve the case. Mr. Woodward seconded the motion. Mr. Hu presented the case and stated the applicants had submitted plans for a 997ft. addition to their existing home. The residence, located at 312 Hilltop Avenue, was unincorporated when constructed in 1925 and later annexed into the City of Wichita Falls in 1959. When the zoning ordinance was adopted in 1985, the subject property was zoned Heavy Commercial, later renaming it to Light Industrial which is the current zoning at present; making this structure legally non-conforming. The Light Industrial ordinance states, that current residential structures are allowed, however, any new residential structures are not. The current residential structures can remain and expand with an approved conditional use permit. The subject property is located in the east area of Wichita Falls, between Hilltop Avenue and MLK Boulevard. Mr. Hu stated there were a mix of uses surrounding Planning and Zoning 4 June 8, 2022 the subject property with zoning designations of Light Industrial (LI) and Residential Mixed Use (RMU). Mr. Hu noted there had been no new development in the area in many years. Mr. Hu advised the Commission the applicant's proposal is to eliminate the second story and add 997sf. for a kitchen and master bedroom expansion. There were 14 property owners within 200ft. of the subject property that were sent notices. One response in favor of the expansion was received. After taking into consideration the remote nature of the site and the proposed use, the planning department believes the impacts to adjacent properties will be minimal. Staff recommends approval of a conditional use to allow for the expansion of the nonconforming land use of single family in a Light Industrial zoning district with the following conditions: 1. The property will comply with the subdivision and development regulations as it pertains to platting. 2. Any future proposed expansions beyond the proposed 997 sf must be subject to the conditional use permit process. 3. The proposal will comply with all applicable building codes and permitting Chairman Cook asked if the applicant was present and wished to make a presentation. The applicant was present, but, wished to give no presentation. Chairman Cook asked if there were any comments from the public. Chairman Cook closed the public comments and opened the floor for the Commission. With no further discussion the Chairman called for a vote. The case passed unanimously with a vote of 7-0. IX. OTHER BUSINESS Downtown Zoning Realignment— Work Session Mr. Terry Floyd briefly talked to the Commission about the Downtown Zoning Realignment project and stated staff had kept City Council updated on the matter. Ms. Karen Gagne gave the presentation and gave a brief overview of the Downtown Zoning Diagnostic Report done by Freese & Nichols, whom had worked with the 2017 Downtown Steering Committee initiated by the City Council. Ms. Gagne gave updates on the progress to date and a recap of previous project meetings. Ms. Gagne stated in the diagnostic report, 8 proposed revisions to the Greater Downtown area that were outlined in a prior update to the City Council that included: I . Special Downtown Zoning Category —4 zones 2. Zoning District Boundary Realignment 3. Downtown Zoning Use Table 4. Development Standards — Reduce Setbacks 5. Non-Conforming Use - Time Limitation & Appeal Process 6. Incorporate Defined Uses Section for Downtown 7, Address Definition Updates: Planning and Zoning June 8, 2022 • Household Care Facility • Structured Sober Living Facility 8. Land Use Plan Amendment — Consolidate Categories Ms. Gagne gave the definition of Zoning, Zoning Boundaries and the current zoning districts in City of Wichita Falls Downtown area. The existing zones were: Central Business District (CBD), General Commercial (GC), River Development District (RDD) and Light Industrial (LI) and the proposed zones of; Central Business District, General Commercial - Downtown, River Development District - Downtown and Light Industrial — Downtown. The existing Greater Downtown Zoning Districts contain 824 parcels (maps shown); 67 in the River Development District (RDD); 259 in the Central Business District (CBD), 341 in the General Commercial (GC); 157 in the Light Industrial (1..1); I in the Historic District and I in the TIF Zone. Ms. Gagne noted, the increased size of the CBD does not result in any changes to the 4B STC eligibility boundary. Existing 4B SIC Downtown improvement Matching Grant eligibility boundary established in 2015 will remain the same as outlined in yellow. Mr. Grassi asked what the benefit would be to the property owners under the new alignment if the TIF zone was not being expanded. Ms. Gagne gave several benefits, the main one being less restrictive development standards. Mr. Grassi asked if we had any background information for this and how the zoning was determined. Ms. Gagne advised it was from the original zoning adoption in 1985. The Downtown Strategic Plan follows recommendations from the Freese & Nichols Diagnostic Report to consider 5 rezone areas (maps shown); 1. north/east section; LI change to RDD-D; 52 parcels 2. west section; RDD change to CBD; 37 parcels 3. west section; GC change to CBD; 24 parcels 4. south/central section; LI change to CBD; 27 parcels 5. south section; Li change to GC-D; 43 parcels Ms. Gagne stated, the RDD boundary is now 5th St to the River from Broad to Ohio/RR tracks, includes changes with Area A and B; Zone will expand by 3 acres with the realignment proposal. Focus of that zone is to provide a facility for recreation and leisure and to enhance tourism. CBD boundary with proposed changes for Area B, C and D by adding 88 lots (11% expansion); will extend to encompass key gateway corridors noted in the Downtown Strategic Plan of eth and 8th Street along with Scott Ave. GC boundary shrinks in the northwest (Area C) but increases by Lamar/Travis along Kell Blvd.; changes with Area E; anticipate a 2-3% expansion of zone overall gain of 19 parcels. LI boundary removed in the NE (Area A); shrunk in the southern portion of the district (Area E) so only includes Indiana along Kell to 1 1 th and Ohio east to the Rail Road tracks.; Zone reduced by 15% with boundary adjustments. Potential consideration of a small strip east of LaSalle alley, approximately 6 lots from try — 9th St moving to CBD as their uses align more closely with commercial rather than the railroad and industrial. Planning and Zoning 6 June 8, 2022 Ms. Gagne displayed the Downtown Zoning Use Table that was put together by staff listing a "P" for permitted uses; "C" for conditional; or if the box is blank it is not allowed. The purpose of the table is to allow for review of uses which would not be appropriate generally, or without certain restrictions throughout a zoning district but which, if controlled as to the number, area, location or relation to the neighborhood, would promote the health, safety, and welfare of the community. A review of development standards and elements as they related to setbacks, height and building coverage was given. Ms. Gagne stated the minimum setbacks were re-assessed to help provide more options for future development including: front, interior side and exterior side. Existing setbacks in most of the downtown zones (RDD, GC and LI) required; 25ft front setback; 25ft exterior side setback; 15ft interior side setback; 50ft— minimum lot width. For the CBD there will be no change in setbacks as there is already the ability to build up to the property line in downtown core. For GC-D it is proposed; 15ft front setback — '10ft reduction; Interior side setback: Residential — 5ft; All other uses — No minimum; 15ft exterior side setback — 10ft reduction. Rear setback: Residential — 5ft; Ift from alley; all other uses — No minimum. Building coverage/Open space limitations - related single- family and multi-family residential projects. RDD Propose: I Oft front setback; No interior side setback; 15ft exterior side setback; no minimum rear setback. Ms. Gagne discussed non-conforming uses and the current 2 year time limit. The appeal process to be brought before the Commission was also discussed. Chairman Cook asked if there were any properties that would be moving in a non- conforming use with the alignment. Ms. Gagne advised there was and this was a reason for the appeals process where the Planning and Zoning Commission would vote on the issue. Ms. Gagne stated staff research of peer cities showed where the City of Wichita Falls gave a 2 year discontinued use time frame other cities have a time frame according to minor/major non-conforming discontinued use for 12 months/6 consecutive months. College Station and Lewisville had a 3 month discontinuance, Abilene, Edinburg, McAllen, Odessa and Tyler, 6 months. Beaumont, Denton, Edinburg and San Angelo, 1 year. Waco was the only other peer city to have a 2 year discontinuance. Ms. Gagne advised the purpose of the definitions section was from a land use perspective, serve the following purpose: simplify text in the ordinance; establish precise meaning of a word or phrase, eliminates ambiguity; transform technical terms into understandable, useable terminology. What is proposed to change would be to incorporate a new definition section (Sec. 2100) addressing a detailed list of uses proposed in Downtown Zoning Use Table and clarify terms to ensure compliance with federal case law and disability standards. Terms for removal are: Adult Daycare Facility, Foster Care Facility, Group Homes, Halfway House, Personal Care Home and Residential Care Facility. Updated Terms would be: Household Care Facility and Structured Sober Living Facility. The existing Downtown Land Use Categories are listed as: • COM — Commercial • DNT — Downtown Planning and Zoning June 8, 2022 • HDR High Density Residential • IND — Industrial • 1ST — Institutional • PAR — Parks & Open Space It is recommended that they be consolidated into two proposed categories of: • DNT — Downtown • PAR — Parks & Open Space It was also a recommendation that the Land Use Plan Amendment be consolidated into those two categories as well. Ms. Gagne advised the proposed zone changes & the Downtown Use Table draft presented during this work session had been sent to both the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Downtown Zoning Stakeholder Committee initially created in July 2021 (owners/tenants throughout downtown to assist staff through Diagnostic implementation phase). The next steps in the projected timeline would first be on July 13th, 2022 when the Planning & Zoning Commission would consider recommendation of the ordinance to the City Council. Next, would be July 19th, 2022 to provide a presentation to the City Council and last, August 16th, 2022 when the City Council would potentially consider the ordinance for adoption. Mr. Wayne Pharries stated he had issues with the work session, stating the Commission received the packet for review less than 48 hours prior to the meeting. Mr. Pharries stated he felt since there where less than 5 rezones over the last 25 years, it was presumptive of staff to make these changes to place owners into non- conforming uses. He stated City staff were making decisions for peoples properties and believed it would have a lot of unintended consequences, stating he is very skeptical. Ms. Gagne stated staff had been working with property owners, Downtown Development Inc., the media, the Downtown Zoning Stakeholder Committee, sending direct mailers, posting information on the website as well as numerous meetings with very little turnout. Those that did participate in the meetings had very good questions. Ms. Gagne reminded the Commission that City Council approved the 2018 Downtown Diagnostic Report and that staff is not purposely trying to create non-conforming businesses but rather implement what Council has approved and directed staff to do. Mr. Floyd advised the Commission in addition to staff efforts in working with Downtown Development there had been no negative feedback and this was a City Council decision to implement this plan. Chairman Cook reminded the Commission that they had known and discussed the 2018 Downtown Diagnostic Report and that property owners have had ample time to voice any and all concerns. Chairman Cook stated he would like to hear from Jana Schmader with Downtown Development Inc. Ms. Schmader stated there had been much work done since the 2018 report the Council implemented including lots of calls and visits mostly about what zone property owners were currently in and reiterated there has been no negative feedback. Planning and Zoning 8 June 8, 2022 Chairman Cook stated he believed some of the permitted uses would be a good thing and reminded the Commission the purpose was to simplify and streamline things and hoped the Code Department would be more streamlines as well. Mr. Floyd stated these changes would provide more flexibility in the development of Downtown. Mr. Pharries stated he was happy with the way Downtown was progressing and hearing how well planning staff has been with helping people develop. He believes the city should have a true "grandfather" statue. Mr. Floyd reminded the Commission the appeal process was in place if something did lose its status. Chairman Cook asked what if any correlation this had with the Downtown Vacant Structure Registry Ordinance. Mr. Floyd stated staff found businesses they didn't know about. Chairman Cook asked if the present City Councilman, Bobby Whiteley had any thoughts he would like to share with the Commission. Councilman Whiteley thanked the Commission for their time they volunteered to be on the Commission and it was up to all boards to make the determination where the City was going. He stated he was in favor of most of the study but believes the citizens should decide where the district boundaries should be and stated Downtown had developed because of private investors. He felt this was a good opportunity for Planning & Zoning, staff and downtown business owners to weigh in. Mr. Paul Menzies stated the realignment was based on the Freese & Nichols plan and that City Council appointed a Downtown Steering Committee to work with them to present a study to the Council. The pandemic slowed down the progress to implement the changes proposed. He stated the questions asked were being researched and if there were more questions to ask them. Mr. Floyd advised if the Commission felt another meeting to discuss that staff could arrange it for them before July. Mr. Doug McCulloch asked if he disagreed with the definitions if changes could be made. Ms. Gagne stated that yes changes could be made, that what was presented was only a working draft and that was the purpose of the presentation, to make any changes as the Commission recommended. Mr. Michael Grassi stated he shared Mr. Pharries feelings and this was a lot to take in. He asked how the firm came up with rezoning alignments and what about the 4B, if only part of Central Business District (CBD) was eligible for grants. Mr. James McKechnie advised that the 48 Board would need to be asked how they determined the 4B Downtown Improvement Grant eligible boundaries and/or why they are not changing, Chairman Cook asked if the Commission could request a liaison from that board attend a Planning & Zoning meeting. Mr. McKechnie advised he could ask. Mr. Menzies stated there was a statutory requirement on what the 4B Board could spend money on and that any changes could result in making the 48 boundary smaller. He stated the 48 Board only used the Central Business District boundary out of convenience and they are not interested in expanding their boundaries.