Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 07/14/2004MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 14, 2004 PRESENT: Cliff Berg, Chairman Charles Barr Ken Birck J. C. Bradberry Cayce Cleary Steve Lane L. O. Nelson Bill Rowland Rusty Sons Charles Elmore David A. Clark, Director of Community Development Marty Odom, Planner II Paul Stillson, Planner II Diane Parker ABSENT: Ken Dowdy Patrick Powers I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Berg at 2:04 p.m. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date O; By F-0,_Time / >! ♦ Members ♦ Alternate #1 • ♦ Council Liaison ♦ City Staff ♦ Alternate #2 Chairman Berg noted that this meeting was broadcast live on Channel 11. It will be replayed several times during the week. Chairman Berg stated motions made by Commission members include all staff recommendations and developmental requirements contained in the staff reports. Any deviations from staff recommendations will be discussed on a case -by -case basis. Otherwise, all recommendations and developmental requirements become part of the motion. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Sons made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 9, 2004 meeting. Ms. Cleary seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote. III. CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Berg noted that Mr. Barr and Mr. Rowland have developmental properties on the agenda and will abstain from the discussion and voting. 1. Public Hearing on Preliminary Plats — none received for July, 2004 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 2004 PAGE 1 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. 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. Bridge Creek Estates, Section 5 (July'04) a. Provide utility slips. b. Label 50 ft. radius on Oakwood Ct. C. Label right -of -way width of Candlewood Circle Extension. d. Label right -of -way width of Bridge Creek. e. Extend water and sewer to proposed lots. (Public Works) f. Construct internal streets according to City ordinance and criteria. (Public Works) g. Comply with stormwater detention ordinance and criteria. (Public Works) h. Additional easements needed prior to approval of final plat. (TXU) i. Ten foot dedicated utility easement to be shown along right -of -way of Candlewood Circle and Oakwood Court. (TXU) 2. Floral Heights Subdivision, Block 18, Lots 9 -A & 10 -A [replat] (July'04) a. Provide utility slips. b. Property is zoned SF -2. Exterior side setback scales 15 feet, should be labeled as such. C. Provide water if proposed Lot 10 -A is not served by water. (Public Works) d. Provide curb and gutter if none presently exists. (Public Works) 3. High Point Village, Section 6 (July '04) (These are the previous comments) a. Provide utility slips. b. Provide volume and page for easements where information is not shown. C. This subdivision is zoned General Commercial, rezoning to Single Family is recommended. d. Show existing right -of -way of Rathgeber Road and label "previously dedicated." e. Re -label "ONCOR" easements as "utility easements." f. Extend water and sewer to serve all proposed lots. g. Construct internal street according to City of Wichita Falls ordinance and criteria. (PUBLIC WORKS) h. Provide stormwater detention for proposed development area, according to City of Wichita Falls ordinance and criteria. (PUBLIC WORKS) i. Provide curb and gutter construction, or escrow amount, for frontage on Rathgeber Road. (PUBLIC WORKS) PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 2004 PAGE 2 j. Additional easements are required along Ricci Street right -of -way. (TXU) k. Ten foot dedicated utility easements to be shown and provided along both rights - of -way on Ricci Street. (TXU) 4. Park Place Christian Church, Block 1, Lot 1 (July'04) a. Provide drawing showing existing building in relationship to utility easement. b. Dedicate 15 -foot strip for street widening along Call Field as per the Thoroughfare Plan. C. Comply with the stormwater detention ordinance. (Public Works) d. Additional easements needed prior to approving final plat. (TXU) e. Ten foot easement to be added along the west and north property line of Lot 1, Block 1. (TXU) 5. Sikes Estates, Section H, Unit 4, Bilk. 3, Lots 25 - 38 & Bilk. 4, Lots 20 - 29 (July'04) a. Provide utility slips. b. Utility easement lot west of Lot 38: Options: (1) Dedicate area as right -of -way and construct parking area for trail access; (2) Combine utility easement lot with Lot 38, in order to assign private ownership and responsibility for its maintenance; or (3) Provide utility lot number and special notes concerning private ownership and maintenance. C. Label 25 -foot building limit line on Lots 30 & 31. d. Label 15 -foot building limit line on Lot 29. e. Provide dimensions for 15 -foot utility easement crossing Lot 31 & 30, so that its location can be determined. f. Final approval of street names is pending review by police dispatchers. g. Label South Shepherds Glen as "herein dedicated ". h. Give internal dimension of the west line of utility easement lot adjacent to Lot 38, and label adjacent right -of -way width to clarify that it is 50 feet at that point. i. Label width of easement along the east line of Lot 20, and give its purpose. j. Provide floodplain note on plat, indicating panel number and zone designation. k. Construct paved connection between South Shepherds Glen and walking trail, as previously discussed. I. Extend water and sanitary sewer to proposed lots. (Public Works) M. Construct internal streets according to City ordinance and criteria. (Public Works) n. Comply with stormwater detention ordinance. (Public Works) 6. Stone Lake Estates, Phase 5, Blocks 2, 3, 4 and 9 (July'04) a. Provide utility slips. b. Show dimensions for the north and west lines of Lot 6, Block 4. C. Provide street name for segment of new cul -de -sac along the south line of Lot 6, Block 4. Label street "herein dedicated," and give width. d. Dimension west line of Lot 26, Block 2. e. Dimension north line of Lots 37 -40. Dimension increase in width of easement and tie down location of width increase. f. Extend water and sanitary sewer to proposed lots. (Public Works) g. Construct internal streets according City standards. (Public Works) h. Comply with stormwater detention ordinance. (Public Works) i. Dedicated five foot utility easement along the south property line of Lot 5, Block 4, from the east line to right -of -way line of Eastridge Drive is needed prior tc approving final plat. (TXU) j. No public playground or park in Subdivision. (PARKS) PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 2004 PAGE 3 Mr. Bradberry made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Lane seconded the motion. The Consent Agenda passed with a unanimous vote. IV. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Case C 04 -26 Carport 1526 Aldrich Avenue Mr. Edward Dilger, applicant, requested a conditional use permit to construct a carport in the front setback of his residence. One property within a 200 feet perimeter of this house has a carport in the front setback. Twenty -seven (27) property owners were notified. Three (3) or 11.11 % replied in favor; three (3) or 11.11 % replied as opposed; and two (2) or 7.41 % replied as undecided /other and no preference indicated. Ms. Cleary made a motion to approve this carport request. Mr. Sons seconded. Mr. Dilger stated he has three vehicles, one of which has had hail damage twice. He commented that a carport would protect his vehicles and improve his home. Mr. Barr inquired about the location of the surrounding carports. Mr. Odom stated there appeared to be one carport, located on Christine, in the front setback within 200 feet of the applicant's house. Mr. Birck noted that a citizen's response indicated carport requests in that area have been denied. Mr. Clark did not recall a carport that was denied; however, he stated that in this neighborhood, there are a limited number of carports in the setback. Mr. Birck then inquired about locating the carport in the rear of the property. Mr. Dilger stated there is a privacy fence that would require a gate and the curb would need modifications for a driveway. He noted that additional concrete would be required in the back yard whereas there is a driveway in the front. Mr. Barr stated that it appeared the alley could accommodate a curb cut for alley access. Chairman Berg asked Mr. Dilger if an alley access carport was agreeable; he replied positively but noted that it would be more expensive. Chairman Berg stated that this Commission acknowledges neighbors who respond negatively to conditional use applications. The three oppositions in this case concern the lack of carports in the area and aesthetics. He noted, in this case, there is an alternative, alley access. Mr. Barr commented that one response indicated that a trailer was parked on the lot. Mr. Dilger stated that he does not own a trailer, it is owned by his neighbor. Mr. Sons stated that neighborhood input does have impact on the Commission's decision. He commented that the backyard has ample room and it would be difficult to approve this request. Mr. Barr stated he was totally opposed to the carport. Mr. Nelson stated he did not have a problem with a front carport and noted the additional costs with locating it in the rear. Ms. Cleary stated she agreed with Mr. Nelson. Mr. Birck stated that a front carport detracts from the house. The vote was three (3) in favor and six (6) opposed. The carport was denied. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 2004 PAGE 4 2. Case C 04 -28 Carport 4103 Alpine Drive Mr. Gilberto Moreno, applicant, requested a conditional use permit to construct a carport in the front setback of his home. One property within 200 feet of his residence has a carport in the front setback. Twenty -nine (29) property owners were notified of this request. Two (2) or 6.9% responded in favor with one clarifying his approval that it should appear as an extension of the house, not an aluminum cover on poles. No responses were received stating they were opposed. Mr. Sons made a motion to approve this carport request. Mr. Bradberry seconded. Mr. Moreno, applicant, stated he recently purchased this house and was concerned about weather conditions affecting his vehicles. Mr. Birck asked Mr. Moreno if there were any restrictions in the back yard to prevent construction of a carport. Mr. Moreno stated there were none but noted it would be more expensive. He stated he has a one car garage but owns three automobiles. Mr. Barr noted there were no carports in the immediate vicinity. Chairman Berg commented that this case is similar to the last one. The vote was three (3) in favor and six (6) opposed. The carport was denied. 3. Case C 04 -29 Carport 3805 Yuma Trail The applicant, Michael Santos, requested a conditional use permit to construct a carport in the front setback of his residence. There are four properties within a 200 -foot perimeter that have carports in the setback. Twenty -six property owners were notified of this request. Five (5) or 19.23% replied in favor and none (0) were opposed. The applicant was not able to attend the meeting. Chairman Berg asked if there was a paved alley; Mr. Odom responded by stating that the plat shows a dedicated easement in the rear. Chairman Berg and Mr. Birck discussed the numerous carports in the surrounding area. Mr. Barr stated that, with four carports in the immediate area, it would be difficult to deny this request. The vote was unanimous in favor of approving the carport. 4. Case C 04 -27 1,800 Square Foot Addition to a Nonconforming Use 3136 Fifth Street Mr. Arthur Gaona, applicant, submitted this request to expand a non - conforming use. He proposed an 1,800 square foot addition to Maximus, an adult entertainment nightclub, at 3136 Seymour Highway. This addition will have handicap accessible restrooms and an area for pool tables. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 2004 PAGE 5 Twelve (12) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. None (0) replied in favor and two (2) or 16.67% were opposed. Staff was not in favor of approving a situation that would increase the intensity of this use. However, staff suggests that the Commission explore the possibility of approval with a condition that would restrict the newly expanded area to non - sexually oriented activity. Ms. Cleary made a motion to approve this request. Mr. Bradberry seconded. Mr. Gaona stated that, after 20 years of operating this business, it has become necessary to include four more pool tables and handicap restrooms. Mr. Birck asked if there would be a problem limiting the area to no adult entertainment. Mr. Gaona stated he really needed this addition to the business and he did not have a problem with the restriction. Ms. Cleary asked if he was expanding the existing area; Mr. Gaona stated that 1,800 square feet would expand to the north and back of the existing building. Ms. Cleary then asked if the existing pool table area would be converted to additional seating. Mr. Gaona acknowledged there would be additional adult entertainment seating. Parking was discussed. Mr. Odom stated parking would be addressed in the site plan review process. Building additions would be required to have the regulated amount of parking spaces. Mr. Birck asked if an increase in seating would generate more required parking spaces. Mr. Odom replied that the number of parking spaces is based on the building's square footage. Discussion was then centered around the building addition. Ms. Cleary asked if the existing area, containing the two pool tables, could be incorporated into the new addition. Then to questioning, Mr. Gaona responded that he did plan to use the existing pool table area for seating. Mr. Gaona stated that he plans to add four tables with three chairs in addition to the pool tables. To questioning, Mr. Gaona replied that he thought the maximum seating was 110 people now. The increased intensity issue was discussed regarding how it should be determined. Chairman Berg stated if the current pool table area is converted to seating, would that constitute an increase in intensity of the nonconforming use. Mr. Odom commented that the changes will increase the number of customers; therefore, the intensity may change. Ms. Cleary suggested using the existing pool table area as part of the 1,800 sq. ft. Mr. Nelson stated the boundaries we are working within include a "grandfathered" non - conforming use, thus any change increasing the intensity would not be approved. Mr. Nelson agreed with Ms. Cleary's suggestion. Mr. Gaona stated he would be agreeable with the decisions made by this Commission. Ms. Cleary stated this business has been there a long time, and this upgrade needs to happen. It will improve the current situation of the building. Chairman Berg asked if Mr. Gaona was agreeable to incorporating the existing pool table area within the 1,800 sq. ft. and making it non -adult entertainment. Mr. Gaona commented that he would welcome any help with the expansion. Ms. Cleary suggested the addition of more pool tables. Mr. Gaona stated that the existing two pool tables combined with four more in the new addition would be profitable. Councilor Elmore suggested the Commission consider expanding the space between the tables. He specified keeping the same number of tables in the 800 sq. ft. space. Ms. Cleary made a motion to amend the original motion to approve this conditional use request by exclusively designating the existing 800 sq. ft., currently used for restrooms and pool tables, plus the proposed area of 1,800 sq. ft. to be used for non - sexually oriented activity. There was discussion regarding police enforcement of this conditional use. Mr. Clark noted that the conditional use permit could be revoked if this space is used for additional tables (and seating) for viewing the entertainment. Mr. Gaona asked if he could place chairs in the pool table area. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 2004 PAGE 6 Ms. Cleary suggested a bar /drink rail. Mr. Birck asked if the stages were visible from the addition, to which Mr. Gaona replied it would not be seen. Mr. Barr asked if the addition is approximately a 50% increase to the original building, would there be any codes restricting an improvement. Mr. Clark stated the issue being decided concerns expanding a non - conforming use; the building could be expanded without conditional use approval. Mr. Barr noted that the motel behind this establishment was used for multifamily residences plus it is across from a school and it appears to be more non - conforming now. Then he stated he was surprised the school district was not represented at this meeting. Mr. Barr noted that the addition would increase intensity because there would be no restrictions on employees or customers. Mr. Birck stated that Mr. Gaona is trying to increase business and he did not believe his request was unreasonable. The entertainment area is not visible from the pool tables and he stated he would be in favor of this request. Chairman Berg stated that an increase in area would increase intensity. Mr. Nelson stated that the motion states there will be no adult entertainment activity in the two areas. He also felt a compromise has been reached. Mr. Sons seconded the motion. The vote was six (6) in favor and three (3) opposed. The motion passed. V. OTHER BUSINESS Zoning Ordinance Amendment Parking of Recreational Vehicles on Residential Lots Mr. Odom reviewed the discussion concerning parking recreational vehicles from the last P &Z meeting. He presented the change to the ordinance to locate recreational vehicles 35 feet from the curb in a residential neighborhood. Several examples were presented to the Commission where this change might present a problem, such as a corner lot. Mr. Nelson stated he originally wanted the RV's out of right -of -way view in the front only for safety and aesthetic reasons. He then stated that the additional verbiage to visibly screen the RV would remedy side and rear yards. Mr. Charles Thomas, 2415 Elmwood Circle North, asked why the ordinance was being rewritten. Chairman Berg stated there had been a request from a citizen. Mr. Thomas expressed concern and suggested not changing the ordinance. Mr. Nelson responded by stating that with the increase in the size of RV's, they impair visibility and take away from neighborhood aesthetics. Mr. Thomas noted that the term "recreational vehicle" applies to all forms of recreational transportation. There was discussion regarding the different types of RV's. Mr. Thomas referenced a previous ordinance that stated RV's should be located behind the easement; and, if the RV became a traffic hazard, it would be required to be moved; and, a visiting RV was allowed to stay three days. Mr. Odom stated that he was aware of an ordinance prohibiting oversized vehicles in the right -of -way but not on residential lots. Mr. Jim Wise, 2215 Selma Drive, asked if the ordinance was being changed for one person. Chairman Berg stated that Mr. Nelson had made a cursory drive through different neighborhoods noticing problems with RV's. He also stated letters have been received complaining about RV's. Mr. Wise stated there are probably 1,000 RV owners with 70 —80% parking at residences. He questioned the proposed ordinance by asking how an RV affected public health and safety and property values. He continued by stating that off -site storage of RV's sometimes increases insurance costs, plus he questioned the availability of storage. He mentioned other neighborhood annoyances, such as unpainted houses, old vehicles stored in driveways, and different perspectives relating to landscaping. Mr. Thomas commented that ordinances such as the one proposed are difficult to enforce without an increase in the police force. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 2004 PAGE 7 Mr. Alton Taylor, 2214 Polk Avenue, noted complaints regarding property restrictions implemented by the city. He stated he has had an RV on his property for 18 years and he emphasized he will not be restricted. His previous RV was 30 ft. and he plans to buy a 28 ft RV. Mr. John Ward, 5926 Northwest Freeway, asked if locating an RV behind the front of the house was still being considered. Mr. Clark stated that, at the end of the last P &Z meeting, it was decided to have RV's locate at least 35 ft. from the back of the curb. Mr. Nelson asked what the main objections were to this proposed ordinance. One of the citizens stated he was on a corner lot and 35 ft. was not appropriate for his situation; no access to rear of the yard; one was a renter who could not make changes to the house. Mr. Nelson then asked what the compromise would be. The citizens all commented to "leave it (the current ordinance) alone ". Mr. Nelson stated there have been complaints received about potential safety issues and aesthetics. Chairman Berg stated the original complaint concerned a 40 ft. RV parked on a narrow driveway which impeded vision. The issue was discussed regarding the number of complaints about RV parking. Mr. Ward noted that, at the June meeting, there was one person who had complained. Mr. Clark stated that staff has received one complaint regarding this topic. He stated that the advice at the last meeting to the Commission was to consider the importance of this issue, which prompted more research. He noted that former Councilor Burns also cautioned the Commission whether such a restriction was needed. Mr. Clark recommended serious thought about the impact of this issue. Mr. Thomas stated that he agreed that there are some RV's parked illegally. He also reminded the Commission that there are different setbacks in neighborhoods. The purpose of these setbacks is safety. Mr. Thomas stated that all RV's that are not parked behind the setback are in violation of the law. He also stated some deed restrictions address this issue. Chairman Berg asked staff to research the previous ordinance regarding this issue. Chairman Berg suggested tabling this issue until more information could be obtained. Mr. Barr made a motion to table this item. Ms. Cleary seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of approval. 2. City Council Update Mr. Clark stated that City Council passed the sign ordinance. A permissive amendment was incorporated to allow the use of some signs in the right -of -way with permission from the City Manager. 3. Discussion of Item of Concern to Members of the P &Z Commission Mr. Barr expressed concern that the landscaping ordinance must be followed for commercial construction; however, it is subjected to the water rationing restrictions. Mr. Barr noted that the Mayor commented about carport approvals. The Mayor noted one carport had nine objections and P &Z approved that carport. Councilor Elmore stated the carport in question was on Blankenship Drive. Ms. Parker stated the minutes incorrectly reflected the responses received; it should have read none (0) were opposed, not nine were opposed. End of Televised Segment PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 2004 PAGE 8 VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Alton Taylor stated there is a house across the street, 2213 Polk, from his residence that is in need of repair. Mr. Clark said he would have Code Enforcement review the location. Mr. Mike Patterson, 1649 Victory, stated a compromise to the RV parking is needed. He further commented that RV's are accepted in some neighborhoods, but not in his. He stated that an RV parked in a driveway would be extremely detrimental to his property values and the quality of his life. Chairman Berg asked if the RV was still located across the street from his residence. Mr. Patterson stated that the RV has been there for a couple of days at a time; it is owned by the neighbor's brother. VII. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m. Cliff Berg, ATTEST: David A. Clark, Dire 6I 001/ Date PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 2004 PAGE 9