Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 01/14/2004MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14, 2004 PRESENT: Cliff Berg, Chairman Charles Barr J. C. Bradberry Cayce Cleary Ken Dowdy, seated in audience Steve Lane L. O. Nelson Bill Rowland Rusty Sons Ken Birck David A. Clark, Director of Community Development Marty Odom, Planner II Paul Stillson, Planner II Diane Parker ABSENT: Patrick Powers I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Berg at 2:00 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES RECEIVED IN CITY CLERK'S OFFIC Date -W BY ,_Time ♦ Members ♦ ♦ Alternate #1 ♦ Alternate #2 ♦ City Staff Chairman Berg noted that a change should be made to page 11 of the December 10, 2003 minutes. The word "opposition" should be replaced with "no response ". The sentence will then read "Mr. Birck noted that there was no response from the single owner of 1507, 1511, and 1513 Fifteenth Street." Ms. Cayce made a motion to approve the minutes of the minutes. Mr. Bradberry seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote. Chairman Berg noted that all motions made by Commission members include all recommendations and developmental requirements listed in the staff report. There are times when the motion has not stated this information specifically but it has always been assumed to include those two items. III. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Public Hearing on Preliminary Plats The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the following plat(s) subject to the Standard Conditions of Approval for Preliminary Plats and any specific conditions listed below: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14, 2004 PAGE 1 Standard Conditions of Approval for Preliminary Plats Provide utility and drainage easements as required by utility companies and the Director of Public Works. Submit water and sewer plans to the 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 and provide utility easements as required by the Director of Traffic and Transportation. Submit two (2) copies of corrected preliminary plat to Planning Division before final platting. Note: Approval of a plat does not imply development of property in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Plum Creek Addition (Jan. 2004) a. Modify "Plum Creek Addition" to further distinguish from existing Plum Creek Subdivision. An example would be "Plum Creek Commercial Addition." b. Coordinate with TXDOT for right -of -way width requirement and street intersection locations — Thoroughfare Plan requires 120'. C. Extend water and sewer to serve all proposed lots. (PUBLIC WORKS) d. Construct internal streets pursuant to City of Wichita Falls criteria. (PUBLIC WORKS) e. Construct street connections with State roads in conformance with TXDOT standards. (PUBLIC WORKS) f. Provide stormwater detention pursuant to City of Wichita Falls criteria. (PUBLIC WORKS) g. Street A is platted to cover an existing Lone Star Gas easement. Request that street be moved off easement or permission be granted from easement holder. (LEGAL) h. Additional easements will be needed prior to approval of final plat. (ONCOR) i. Dedicated utility easements are needed along rights -of -way, rear and side property lines: 10 ft. along right -of -way lines; 7.5 ft. either side of property lines (total 15 ft. in width); and 7.5 ft. along rear lot lines. (ONCOR) 2. 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 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 the 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. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14, 2004 PAGE 2 Coordinate street lighting plan with Director of Traffic & 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. Expressway Village, Section 24, Block 25, Lot 26 & Block 26, Lot 5 (Jan. 2004) a. Provide utility slips. b. Extend water and sewer to serve all proposed lots. (PUBLIC WORKS) C. Construct internal street pursuant to City of Wichita Falls criteria. (PUBLIC WORKS) d. Construct street connection with State road in conformance with TXDOT standards. (PUBLIC WORKS) e. Provide stormwater detention pursuant to City of Wichita Falls criteria. (PUBLIC WORKS) f. Additional easements will be needed prior to approving final plat. (PUBLIC WORKS) 2. Guam Estates, Block 4, Lot 16 (Jan. 2004) a. Provide utility slips. b. Comply with curb and gutter provisions of City of Wichita Falls ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS) C. Provide stormwater detention pursuant to City of Wichita Falls criteria. (PUBLIC WORKS) 3. Highland Addition, Block 119, Lots 3 -A & 3 -B (Jan. 2004) a. Provide utility slips. b. Review total length of west line compared to the sum of west dimensions of Lots 3A & 3B. C. Extend water and sewer to serve both newly formed lots. (PUBLIC WORKS) d. Provide stormwater detention pursuant to City of Wichita Falls criteria. (PUBLIC WORKS) 4. Original Townsite, Block 163, Lot 7 -A [replat] (Jan. 2004) a. Provide ONCOR easement via separate instrument. (PUBLIC WORKS) 5. Original Townsite, Block 208, Lot 9 -A [replat] (Jan. 2004) No comments received for this plat. 6. Plum Creek Addition, Block 1, Lot 1(Jan. 2004) a. Provide utility slips. b. Modify "Plum Creek Addition" to further distinguish from existing Plum Creek Subdivision. An example would be "Plum Creek Commercial Addition." C. Coordinate with TXDOT for right -of -way width requirement and street intersection locations — Thoroughfare Plan requires 120 feet. d. Provide stormwater detention pursuant to City of Wichita Falls criteria. (PUBLIC WORKS) 7. Stone Lake Estates Phase 4, Block 18, Lots 3, 4, 5 & 6(Jan. 2004) a. Provide utility slips. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14, 2004 PAGE 3 b. Provide volume and page on plat for off -site utility easement. C. Extend water and sewer to all proposed lots. (PUBLIC WORKS) d. Provide stormwater detention and /or comply with existing stormwater detention plan on file. (PUBLIC WORKS) e. Construct internal street pursuant to City of Wichita Falls criteria. (PUBLIC WORKS) f. Dedicate 10 ft. utility easement along street right -of -way on Lake Bend Drive on final plat. (ONCOR) Mr. Sons made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Rowland seconded the motion. The Consent Agenda passed with a unanimous vote. IV. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Case R 04 -01 Rezoning from SF -2 to MFR 10.07 Acres out of the H. & G. N. RR Co. Survey, Section 39, A -161, Along the East Line of 1 -44 Expressway Rhone Building Corporation requested rezoning of approximately 10 acres to Multifamily Residential. This tract is to be an extension of the Rhone's Northpark Apartments, which is to the south. Three surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Two responded in favor and none were opposed. Mr. Barr made a motion to recommend approval of this rezoning request and change to the land use plan to City Council. Mr. Sons seconded. Chairman Berg asked about the extension of Tinker Trail. Mr. Jim Biggs, engineer for Rhone, explained that it would split the tract into two lots, and extend to the expressway. The vote was unanimous in favor of approval. 2. Case C 04 -01 Canine and Feline Pet Boarding Facility A 21.75 -Acre Tract Along the South Line of Reilly Road Jim and Teresa Leugemors applied for a conditional use permit to operate a canine and feline boarding facility. Their proposal included a 1,200 square foot house with an 800 square foot office and 40 spaces for boarding. Mr. Bradberry made a motion to approve this request. Mr. Rowland seconded. Seven surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One responded in favor, one was opposed, and one responded as no opinion or undecided. Mr. Joe Hoff, Reilly Limited, stated that he was not opposed to the board facility but inquired about the zoning and valuation of his property. Chairman Berg stated that his property was not affected by the rezoning, which occurred in December. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14, 2004 PAGE 4 The vote was unanimous in favor of approval. 3. Case C 04 -02 Construct a Driveway Entrance to Parker Square Replacing an Existing Nonconforming Use 2400 Piedmont Place Mr. Michael Cox of Corlett, Probst and Boyd submitted a request to convert a non - conforming beauty shop to a non - conforming driveway entrance to Parker Square. Staff recommended approval with the condition that a 36 -foot wide drive be constructed with a five -foot landscaped median as well as the areas adjacent to the sides of the drive also be landscaped. Another condition of approval would be the construction of a privacy fence. Twenty surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One responded in favor, none were opposed, and two responded as undecided or no opinion. Mr. Sons made a motion to approve this request. Ms. Cleary seconded. Ms. Cleary stated concerns about the increased traffic with cars parked on both sides of the street. Mr. Clark noted the north side of the street has more commercial properties with the south side having residential. He stated the drive would probably become an exit for traffic, which would allow it to enter Kemp at a stoplight. Ms. Cleary noted that cars traveling east on Piedmont are occasionally limited to a single lane with the parked vehicles taking most of the street. Mr. Clark stated that a traffic problem is not anticipated but if one develops it would be addressed at that time. The vote was unanimous in favor of approval. 4. Case C 04 -03 Manufactured Home in SF -1 576 Cartwright Road Mr. Charles Dodge is requesting a conditional use permit to locate a manufactured home at the above address. This area has been developing with a mixture of site -built and manufactured homes. Fourteen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Five responded in favor and none were opposed. Mr. Barr made a motion to approve this manufacture home. Mr. Bradberry seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor of approval. 5. Case C 04 -05 Establish an Office over 1,200 Square Feet in Limited Commercial 2510 Ninth Street Mr. Kirk Harmon has requested a permit to convert a 1,995 square foot house into a real estate office. There are residences to the north and east with a music store to the west. Along this portion of Ninth Street, there is a mixture of commercial and residential. The applicant stated he would have four employees. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14, 2004 PAGE 5 Fourteen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Two replied opposed with concerns about the area developing commercially. Offices are permitted in LC if under 1,200 square feet. Ms. Cleary made a motion to approve this request. Mr. Sons seconded. Mr. Harmon stated that the only changes to the front would be the addition of two parking spaces and landscaping for a commercial building. The vote was unanimous in favor of approval. 6. Case C 04 -06 Construct a Two -Story Accessory Building 1903 Eden Lane Mr. David Band requested a conditional use permit to construct a two -story accessory building to use as an art studio and gallery in the back of his residence. The proposed height is 23.9 feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the side setback be equal to the height of the structure. Mr. Band requested a five -foot setback instead of the required 23.9 feet. The P &Z Commission can approve the reduction in setback if the building resembles the existing building on the lot in style and detail. Staff recommended approval of this request. Twenty surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Three responded in favor and none were opposed. Mr. Barr made a motion to approve this request. Mr. Bradberry seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor of approval. 7. Case C 03 -66 480' Communications Tower 3904 Lawrence Road The City has proposed to locate a public safety communications tower for use by the Police and Fire Departments on the tract with the Transfer Station. The zoning is Light Industrial. At the December P &Z meeting, this item was tabled pending more information from the consultants and vender for a potential new location. Fifteen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Five responded opposed. Mr. Bradberry made a motion to approve this tower. Ms. Cleary seconded. Mr. Matt Benoit, Assistant City Manager, presented a map showing the towers and booster towers. The four major towers were located on Puckett, Reilly, and Sixth at Denver. He reviewed the previous suggestion for the tower to locate on Seymour Highway. It would require the height to be 500 feet. Signal loss would be greater closer to the tower and not serve the City's needs. The Cypress Water Treatment Plant was presented next; however, a communications gap would occur around Kickapoo AirPark. The next suggested location was around Kickapoo which would not provide service to the southeast part of the City. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14, 2004 PAGE 6 The consultants have stated that the tower must be located in the southwest part of the City, and specifically, centralized in the southwest portion. Mr. Birck inquired about overlapping. Mr. Benoit stated there is some in the event of a tornado or a failure. Mr. Nelson asked about the final height. Mr. Benoit stated that the FAA has approved 500', the original application was for 480'. This would allow co- location by other tower users. To provide the coverage discussed in the proposal, 375' would be the minimum required. Mr. Nelson asked if the Transfer Station was the second choice with Fire Station #8 being most desirable. Mr. Benoit stated #8 was not an appropriate location; Mr. Odom added that the zoning is SF and towers require a minimum zoning of Ll. Mr. Bobby Schaaf presented a schedule of the businesses in the area, including the land occupied, taxes paid, and revenue. He stated that there are not many tracts of 90 acreages that provide equal revenue in taxes to the county. He noted that the Vetrotex warehouse on Call Field occupies 13.89 acres, the third largest tract, and is the eighth in appraised value at $4,469,004. He declared that at some time (in the future), the market would change that location (to another land use). He stated that the tower diminishes the value of Lawrence Road. It is regretful that it has taken hard work to clean up the industrial area to turn it into a retail area and now it is being reindustrialized. Mr. Schaaf suggested the Wichita Engineering property, an 11 -acre tract east of Lowe's and Preston Juice. Mr. Schaaf asked the Commission to consider that the fewer obstacles on Lawrence Road would be better for sales to the retail market. Mr. Lane asked what his opposition was; Mr. Schaaf replied it was the proximity to the property line and the height of the tower. Mr. Barr asked about the tower to the northwest; Mr. Schaaf replied it was 250'. He noted that the Channel 6 tower is 1,000 ft. and this tower would be half that height. Mr. Birck noted that responses were not received from Sam's, WalMart, or Circuit City. Mr. Schaaf questioned whether the responses were sent to the local store managers or their corporate offices. He noted those stores are already located there; this tower would affect potential land sales. There was discussion regarding the difficulty in developing the Wichita Engineering tract for retail sales. Mr. Ken Coughlin, Chief of Police, stated that the tower is the most critical portion of the radio system which will protect 104,000 people. The consultants have looked at all the options available and this (Lawrence Road) is their recommendation. He stated he wanted the best system for the City. It may affect a few people but regardless of its location, it will always affect a few people. This area is widely populated and needs a strong signal for police and fire response and protection. Mr. John Hirschi stated that all of those concern agree with Chief Coughlin regarding the need for the tower. He stated that there should be more than one location for it. He commented that the City is shortsighted by ruining the (transfer station) property by placing the tower there so they cannot get maximum value from it. He continued by stating that area will continue to develop with high dollar stores. It property values continue to expand there will be pressure to redevelop the transfer station land. Mr. Jim Berzina, City Manager, stated if the transfer station land were sold, a replication would be necessary. The voters approved that site in 1981 -82 when it was a mesquite field. Relocating the facility is the problem. From an operational standpoint, that is difficult. It is an efficient operation for every trash collection truck to travel from their route to the transfer station instead of the landfill. To relocate the City's transfer station would be an unpopular event. The cost of the relocation would include environmental impact studies which would possibly be as much as $1.5 million. Moving to the east, south, or north would present problems of additional costs in transporting the waste to the landfill. If it were moved to the west away from development, then trucks might as well drive straight to the landfill. Mr. Berzina stated he is PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14, 2004 PAGE 7 convinced that the tower belongs on the transfer station site and he does not intend to move the transfer station. Mr. Nelson asked for Mr. Benoit's response to moving the tower to the Wichita Engineering tract. It would be an economic decision, the use of taxpayers' money plus a time factor. Another request for a conditional use permit would be presented with a different group of objectors. Mr. Berzina reviewed a list of reasons stating why the transfer station is in the most appropriate place (for the tower) and why the property will continue to function in that capacity. Mr. Benoit continued by stating that it is a good economic decision to use the transfer station and proceed with this project. Mr. Sons inquired about the severity of the impact of locating the tower at the transfer station. Mr. Benoit stated that the effect on property values in an unknown as well as the time frame in which in might happen. Mr. Berzina stated that locating the toweron the transfer station does not use any surrounding land that could be developed. Constructing the tower on the Wichita Engineering property eliminates the possibility of that land being developed. When the Maplewood Extension is constructed, the Wichita Engineering tract could be a valuable piece of property. Mr. Sons asked if the tower were located at the transfer station would it impede development. Chairman Berg stated that he would have thought the transfer station would have discouraged development, but it happened in spite of it. Mr. Schaaf stated that it would continue to be more of an eyesore and more detrimental to development in that area. It would not be a positive for development in that area. Mr. Schaaf stated that he understood every piece of property in that area, whether owned by the City or not, would be checked for availability and costs to locate the tower. Mr. Nelson stated that the transfer station is the compromise compared to Fire Station #8 and all other possible locations. It appears that if the tower were moved from the transfer station, coverage, either under the tower or at a distance, would be compromised. Chairman Berg stated that he appreciated all comments made today. The City is not willing to relocate. He stressed the importance of public safety. He stated he agreed with Mr. Nelson that the transfer station is the compromised site. He stated he would be in favor of granting this permit. Mr. Lane asked what height the tower would be. Chairman Berg stated that it was presented at 480 feet and that is the height for which the vote will be. The vote was eight (8) in favor and one (1) opposed. The conditional use permit for the 480' tower passed. V. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Discussion Item Staff update and discussion regarding Kemp Blvd. Community Meeting Phase (- Avenue C to Avenue M Mr. Clark stated the results from the meeting have been detailed in the agenda book. The theme of the meeting was that the area along Kemp should be commercial with restrictions. The citizens approved of setbacks, screening from residential uses, and an intermediate zone between LC and GC. There was discussion about Kell which appears to be more complicated PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14, 2004 PAGE 8 that Kemp. A land use study has been completed. He stated that staffis preparing information for P &Z regarding the intermediate zone. The citizens were concerned about noise. They were encouraging new commercial construction and development of Kemp. Ms. Cleary stated that some citizens were upset because older homes were not being updated yet used as businesses. She stated they like the idea of commercial but they want it to look good. Mr. Nelson agreed with Ms. Cleary stating that some wanted structures torn down with newly constructed commercial establishments built. Mr. Odom stated he felt commercial residents wanted to be able to expand their uses and the residents wanted limitations on commercial activity. He felt the City would be able to offer a compromise with the intermediate zone. Ms. Cleary stated that conditional use approval was popular. Citizens wanted more boutiques and restaurants. Mr. Barr stated the new national code would be a deterrent to renovating some of the older structures. VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Kip Harman, 4605 Langford, stated that he owns two properties on Kemp. He agreed with limiting the conditional use process. He acknowledged that most of the lots are too small for commercial construction. Reconditioning the existing buildings is subjective. Most businesses will require the purchase of neighboring lots but some property owners are not willing to sell because some are rentals creating income for their owners. In his opinion, General Commercial zoning would be best. Chairman Berg agreed that landowners that are not willing tosell their properties could present problems for larger businesses to locate there. Mr. Harman stated he did not want to see inexpensive metal buildings on Kemp. VII. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 1. Council Update Mr. Clark stated that Council approved the Reilly rezoning. The Elizabeth /Grace Streets were also rezoned. Staff submitted an increase in fees for rezoning and conditional use items. The rezoning fees were $150 for five acres and under, with $10 per acre over five acres. Mr. Clark noted that the rezoning notifications in the newspaper were frequently costing more than our charges for the fees. Rezoning applications were approved at $250 for five acres or under and $10 per acre over five acres. Staff did not propose an increase for carports; Council did not agree and raised carport fees from $50 to $75. Mr. Odom noted that fees have not been increased since zoning went into place in 1986. 2. Nominations of P &Z Chairman and Vice Chairman Mr. Sons made a motion to nominate Mr. Berg for Chairman and Mr. Nelson for Vice Chairman. Ms. Cleary seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor of approval. 3. New Alternate Member Mr. Clark introduced Mr. Ken Dowdy to the Commission. 4. Other Business Chairman Berg commented that a citizen approached him regarding the unmowed grass at the Coliseum. Mr. Clark mentioned that landscaping was started but the drought has been a factor. He stated he would pass along the comment about the mowing and edging problem. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14, 2004 PAGE 9 VIII. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Cliff Berg, Chairman ATTEST: David A. Clark, Director Date Date PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14, 2004 PAGE 10