Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 04/09/2003f
RECEIVED IN
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Date �_��
., „ ' �ft I Imp
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
April 9, 2003
PRESENT:
Cliff Berg, Chairman
Charles Barr
Steve Lane
L. O. Nelson
Patrick Powers
Susan Wood Reeves
Bill Rowland
Rusty Sons
Ken Birck
David A. Clark, Director of Community Development
Marty Odom, Planner I
Paul Stillson, Planner II
Johnnie Burns
ABSENT:
J. C. Bradberry
Cayce Cleary
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Berg at 2:00 p.m.
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one from the audience wished to address the Commission.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
♦ Members
♦ Alternate #2
•
•
♦ City Staff
♦ Council Liaison
♦ Alternate #1
Mr. Sons made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 12, 2003 meeting. Mr.
Rowland seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote.
IV. 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 • April 9, 2003
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. W. G. Harrison Addition, Block 1, Lot 1 & 2 (Apr. `03)
a. Redraw front of lot as per detail supplied by staff.
b. Identify east -west line or remove, as per detail.
C. Provide volume and page for easement.
Cl. Replace vicinity map.
e. Remove signature blocks, this is not needed for a preliminary plat.
f. Give northwest -most lot owned by applicant a lot number.
g. Extend water to serve all lots. (PUBLIC WORKS)
h. Provide approved sewerage system for all lots. (PUBLIC WORKS)
i. Comply with stormwater detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
j. Comply with curb and gutter ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
k. If site is to use on -site sewage facilities, submit subdivision review for
OSSF's to Health. (HEALTH)
2. Priddy Subdivision, Block 6, Lot 3 -A (Apr. `03)
a. Extend sewer to serve lot. (PUBLIC WORKS)
b. Comply with curb and gutter ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
C. NOTE: Stormwater detention is provided for as part of another plan.
(PUBLIC WORKS)
d. If site is to use on -site sewage facilities, submit subdivision review for
OSSF's to Health. (HEALTH)
3. Rolling Acres Subdivision, Block 1, Lot 1 (Apr. `03)
a. Provide contour lines.
b. Indicate existing Huntington Lane as "previously dedicated" or "dedicated
through use."
C. Comply with curb and gutter ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
d. If site is to use on -site sewage facilities, submit subdivision review for
OSSF's to Health. (HEALTH)
Planning & Zoning Commission • April 9, 2003
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. W. G. Harrison Addition, Block 1, Lot 1 (Apr. `03)
a. Provide utility slips.
b. Redraw front of lot as per detail provided by staff.
C. Identify east -west line or remove.
d. Provide volume and page for easement.
e. Provide surveyor's seal.
f. Remove county judge signature block.
g. Label right -of -way width for Airport Drive.
h. Extend water to serve lot. (PUBLIC WORKS)
i. Provide approved sewerage system. (PUBLIC WORKS)
j. Comply with stormwater detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
k. If site is to use on -site sewage facilities, submit subdivision review for
OSSF's to Health. (HEALTH)
2. High Point Village, Section 5 (Apr. '03)
a. Provide utility slips.
b. Correct lot number on Lot 43.
C. Assure all lots meet the minimum lot width.
d. Provide explanation for landscaping easements, they should be labeled
"private."
e. Alley should be designated as "private ". (PUBLIC WORKS)
f. Extend water and sewer to serve all lots. (PUBLIC WORKS)
g. Construct internal streets per City ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
h. Provide stormwater detention per City ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
i. Funds are not available to purchase land by the City for a park, open
space, or playground.
j. Encroachment of 20' utility and access easement are under review by
Oncor Transmission Right -of -Way Department. (ONCOR)
k. Approval of plat is pending review of encroached property and paved
access for public usage. (ONCOR)
Planning & Zoning Commission ♦ April 9, 2003
3. Hill & Hill Heights, Section Two, Unit Four, Block 2, Lots 19 -24 (Apr. '03)
a. Provide utility slips.
b. Label city limits "in" and "out ".
C. Label front setback as 25 feet instead of 15 feet.
d. Extend water and sewer to serve all lots. (PUBLIC WORKS)
e. Construct internal streets per City ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
f. Comply with stormwater detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
g. Must use City sewer services. (HEALTH)
h. Additional easements will be needed. (ONCOR)
4. Lazy Acres Subdivision, Block 1, Lot 1 (Apr. '03)
a. Provide utility slips.
b. Comply with stormwater detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
C. Comply with curb and gutter ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
d. Submit subdivision review to Health. (HEALTH)
5. Moore- McCans Addition, Block1, Lot 1 (Apr. '03)
a. Provide utility slips.
b. Complete owner signature block.
C. Show the southern -most boundary of Parsons Street with a solid line
along Seymour Highway.
d. The tract to the north and west of this tract does not have sufficient
frontage to meet subdivision regulations requirements.
e. Extend sewer service. (PUBLIC WORKS)
f. Must use City sewer. (HEALTH)
g. An existing easement needs to be added to the plat. (ONCOR)
h. Additional easements are needed along east property line. (ONCOR)
6. Regency One Addition, Block 1, Lot 1 (Apr. '03)
a. Provide utility slips.
b. Dedicate five feet of right -of -way along Wenonah.
C. Provide sewer service. (PUBLIC WORKS)
7. Rolling Acres Subdivision, Block 1, Lot 1 (Apr. '03)
a. Provide utility slips.
b. Comply with curb and gutter ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS)
C. If site is to use on -site sewage facilities, submit subdivision review for
OSSF's to Health. (HEALTH)
Planning & Zoning Commission • April 9, 2003
Mr. Barr made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Nelson seconded the
motion. The Consent Agenda passed with a unanimous vote.
V. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Ordinance Amending Appendix B, Zoning Ordinance Regarding On-
Premise Incidental Use Sales and Service of Alcohol in a Limited
Commercial Zoning District
Mr. Nelson made a motion to recommend approval to City Council of this ordinance
change. Mr. Rowland seconded the motion.
Mr. Clark stated this change would allow on- premise consumption of alcoholic
beverages in Limited Commercial zoning with the conditional use process. The only
district currently allowing alcohol with conditional use approval is RMU.
Chairman Berg stated, if the ordinance is approved by this Commission, it will be a
recommendation to City Council who will vote on the final decision.
Ms. Jackie Spragins, 2009 Speedway #1, inquired about the purpose of changing this
zoning district. Mr. Clark replied this change was generated by a citizen's request. Ms.
Spragins asked if it would apply (to LC zones) citywide. Mr. Clark stated the change
would be granted to those businesses in LC zones that requested and received
conditional use approval from this Commission. She then asked, if a business were
sold, would the next owner need a conditional use permit. Mr. Clark stated no, unless
this Commission stipulates a condition of approval that is limited to specific ownership of
an establishment.
The vote was unanimous to recommend approval to Council.
2. Beer and Wine Sales in a Limited Restaurant
2601 Harrison
Case C 03 -14
Applicant ....... ............................... Paul Clark, as property owner
Lynn Connolly, owner of Pasqual Restaurant
Requested Action ........................ Conditional Use Permit
Purpose ........ ............................... On- Premise Alcohol Sales in a Limited Commercial
Zoning District
Property ............ ...........................2601 Harrison
Existing Land Use ........................ Restaurant
Surrounding Land Uses & Zoning N: Residences, SF -2
E: Residences, SF -2
S: Residences, SF -1
W: Residences, SF -1
Analysis:
The owner of Pasqual's Restaurant approached the Commission about amending the
Zoning Ordinance to allow for alcoholic beverages in a Limited Commercial zoning
district. The Commission directed staff to look at amending the regulations. At this April
Planning & Zoning Commission ♦ April 9, 2003
meeting, the Commission is being presented this amendment for their consideration.
The text amendment would go to Council on May 6th. The issuance of this Conditional
Use Permit would be conditioned upon Council approving the text amendment.
The existing alcohol regulations list two types of on- premise uses, two types of off-
premise uses and a temporary use. The applicant wants to serve wine, and conduct an
occasional wine tasting, which would be an on- premise activity, which would also fall
under incidental use. That is, the sell and dispensing of alcohol would be subordinate to
the primary use as a restaurant.
The hours of operation within the Limited Commercial zoning district are limited to
between 6:00 a.m. and midnight. This prohibits a Late Hours Permit.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this conditional use with the following conditions:
1. The applicant obtain only a Wine and Beer Retailer's permit and, if necessary, a
Food and Beverage Certificate through the TABC.
2. The permit will be for On- Premise Incidental Use, Sales and Service where the
primary use is as a restaurant.
3. This Conditional Use Permit shall only be valid for this current activity as a limited
restaurant.
Chairman Berg stated there are three conditions of approval listed in the staff report and
he added a fourth condition: "Upon the sale or transfer of ownership of the current
business, Pasqual Restaurant (currently owned by Connolly's Pasqual Inc.), that the
conditional use permit is void. So, as long as it is operated as a limited restaurant and
as long as there is no sale or transfer of ownership of the Pasqual Restaurant, then the
Conditional Use Permit remains. If it were to change ownership or sell, then the
Conditional Use Permit is void and any new owner or occupant would have to come
before this Commission in order to have permission to use wine or beer."
Ms. Reeves made a motion to conditionally approve this permit based on the three
conditions listed in the staff report and the fourth condition Chairman Berg made. Mr.
Sons seconded the motion.
Mr. Clark reviewed the particulars of the case listed in the staff report. Twenty -four
surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Two replied in favor, six
were opposed, and one response indicated undecided. Of the six opposed, two were
conditional and the fourth condition of approval should alleviate their concerns.
Mr. Odom reiterated that a late hours permit (to serve alcoholic beverages) would not
be approved in Limited Commercial because the hours of operation for any business
are 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m.
Ms. Lynn Connolly, owner of Pasqual, commented that the conditions are within reason
and she understood the concern of the neighborhood. She stated that she plans to
continue to conduct her business with the high integrity that she has in past years. To
Planning & Zoning Commission • April 9, 2003
questioning she responded that the hours of operation are 11:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday with private parties in the evening.
Ms. Jackie Spragins, resident of the condominiums behind the restaurant, displayed a
photograph showing the close proximity of the apartments to Pasqual. She stated that
she was against the liquor permit because the restaurant is too close to the neighboring
residential area. She expressed concerns for the change of ownership of the restaurant
or a new restaurant locating in that space and the inadequate parking. Mr. Odom stated
the minimum parking requirement for that building has been met.
Ms. Spragins stated that a precedence has been established with a restaurant in that
location and now liquor would also set a precedence. She stated that it could be a
problem under different ownership.
Mr. Carr Staley, resident of the condominium behind the restaurant, expressed
concerns for the alcohol being served and the potential use of the patio connected to
the other end of the building. Mr. Bobby Schaaf, owner of the building at 2601 Harrison
and owner of Domain Realty, stated that the patio belongs to Domain and is blocked
from Pasqual's by a fence. He also stated the only way to access the patio would be
from the rear of the restaurant through the kitchen area.
Mr. Clark addressed restaurant expansion by stating a restaurant in Limited Commercial
is limited to 1,200 square feet. An expansion to the current restaurant would be a
violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Connolly stated that the limitations on this restaurant are very strict. She continued
by informing the Commission that between five and eight nights per month the
restaurant has held parties serving alcoholic beverages. There have not been any
previous complaints. Ms. Connolly mentioned that it would not be monetarily feasible to
convert her leased space into a bar.
Mr. Barr asked if the restaurant was currently serving evening meals. Ms. Connolly
stated that evening meals were served in the past but not at this time. The restaurant
was open from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. when they were served. Mr. Rowland asked if
she began serving evening meals again would the hours be the same. She replied that
the hours would probably be 6:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. which would be well under the
12:00 a.m. restriction.
Mr. Nelson asked Ms. Connolly to explain the patio situation. She stated the patio is
owned by Domain. She stated she has never used the patio or had a desire to do food
service there. The health restrictions do not allow food to be taken out the back door
past the area where there is trash. She commented that accessing the patio would not
be allowed by the health restrictions.
Ms. Spragins inquired about private parties. Ms. Connolly stated that alcoholic
beverages would be sold at parties; patrons could not bring their own.
The motion passed with a unanimous vote in favor.
Planning & Zoning Commission ♦ April 9, 2003
3. Carport
4504 Lakeview Drive
Case C 03 -13
A motion was made to approve the carport then seconded.
Twenty -four surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Six replied in
favor and one replied as undecided.
Mr. Wayne Northcutt, applicant, stated the size is an estimation until he contracts for the
construction. He stated it would be made of metal.
The vote was unanimous in favor of approval of the carport.
4. Construct a 24 -Foot Tall Accessory Building Within 16 Feet of the Property
Line
1604 Weeks Street
Case C 03 -15
Applicant
Requested Action
Purpose
Property
Existing Land Use
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning
Wayne Mansur
Conditional Use Permit
To construct a two story accessory building, 16 feet
from the property line.
1604 Weeks Street
Residence
N: Residence, SF -2
S: Residence, SF -2
E: Residence, SF -2
W: Residence, SF -2
Analysis:
On February 12th, the Planning & Zoning Commission considered a request from an
architect to amend Section 6500, Accessory Use Regulations. The proposed change
will provide a conditional use permit process to allow reduced setbacks for accessory
buildings, under certain conditions. The building must be of the same or similar style,
and must resemble the primary residence in material and detailing. The Council passed
this amendment on April 1.
The architect's client has now applied for a conditional use permit to build a detached
garage on his lot using the amended ordinance. The previous regulations would have
required a setback equal to the building's height, in this case 24 feet. The proposed
location is about 16 feet from the property line.
Recommendation:
Staff feels that this use meets the requirements for a reduced setback, and
recommends approval of this application.
Planning & Zoning Commission ♦ April 9, 2003
Developmental Requirements:
This project is located in the floodplain and will require elevation to 1 foot above the
base flood elevation. All other developmental requirements shall be met.
Mr. Barr made a motion to approve this accessory building. Mr. Sons seconded the
motion.
Seventeen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Seven replied in
favor and none were opposed.
Mr. Clark presented a letter from the applicant, who was absent, explaining some of the
details of the building.
The vote was unanimous in favor of approval of the accessory building.
5. Carport
2712 Ridgeway Drive
Case C 03 -16
Mr. Sons made a motion to approve this carport request. Mr. Nelson seconded the
motion.
Thirty -one surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Four replied in
favor and one was opposed.
Mr. Carl Smith, applicant, stated his carport would be constructed of metal.
The carport passed with a unanimous vote in favor.
6. Carport
4103 Aspen
Case C 03 -17
Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve this carport. Mr. Rowland seconded the motion.
Thirty -four surrounding property owners were in favor of this request. Eight replied in
favor and one was opposed.
The applicant was not present; however, Mr. Stillson presented a picture of a carport
that would be similar to the one requested.
The carport passed with a unanimous vote in favor.
7. Carport
2813 Avenue R
Case C 03 -18
Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve this carport. Mr. Powers seconded the motion.
Planning & Zoning Commission ♦ April 9, 2003
Twenty -five surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Five replied in
favor and none were opposed.
The applicant was not present. Mr. Stillson presented a picture of a similar carport.
The carport was approved with a unanimous vote in favor.
8. Manufactured Home
4501 Huntington Lane
Case C 03 -19
Applicant ....... ...............................
Joseph Betsinger
Requested Action ........................
Conditional Use Permit
Purpose ........ ...............................
Manufactured Home in SF -2
Property ............ ...........................4501
Huntington Lane
Existing Land Use ........................
Vacant Land
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning.
N: Vacant Land, SF -1
S: Vacant Land, SF -1
E: Vacant Land, SF -1
W: Vacant Land, GC
Analysis:
The applicant owns 6.99 acres of land along Huntington Lane. He wishes to place a
new manufactured home at this location. This area was annexed into the city in 1999.
To the north, there are several vacant tracts mixed with residences including a mobile
home and a manufactured home. Agricultural land is to the south and east. To the
west is prison land and a race track.
The applicant proposes to face the front of the manufactured home away from
Huntington Lane and to the rear of the property. Section 5615 of the Zoning Ordinance
allows for the facing of the front of the home away from a public street if the lot exceeds
an acre or the home is set back at least 100 feet from the front property line. The
applicant's lot is over an acre and his plan shows a setback of 100 feet.
Recommendation:
Staff feels that this use is compatible with the surrounding area and recommends
approval of this project.
Developmental Requirements:
This project will be subject to all developmental requirements including platting, building
codes, and a paved drive.
Mr. Sons made a motion to approve this manufactured home request. Mr. Rowland
seconded the motion.
Mr. Clark gave a brief summary of this application.
Planning & Zoning Commission ♦ April 9, 2003
Five surrounding property owners were notified of this request. None were in favor,
three were opposed, and one was undecided. There were concerns regarding
development issues, compatibility with facing the home to the rear of the lot,
permanency of manufactured homes, and property values.
The applicant was not present for the meeting.
To questioning, Mr. Odom responded that the property was not rental property; the
applicant plans to reside in the manufactured home.
Chairman Berg inquired about City restrictions regarding the positioning of the home.
Mr. Odom stated there are no restrictions if the lot is over an acre or the setback is at
least 100 feet. Under an acre with a setback of less than 100 feet requires the home to
face the street.
Ms. Charlotte Spragins, owner of property next to 4501 Huntington, stated, in this area
bounded to the west by F.M. 369, to the south by U. S. 287, and to the north by Reilly
Road, she owns over 1,000 acres. She commented that the area is attractive and
development should include order with codes and restrictions. Ms. Spragins stated a
concern that manufactured housing could affect the value of the surrounding property,
some of which contains brick homes. She asked if the owner could subdivide his
property and place eight to twelve manufactured homes on the 6.99 acres. Mr. Odom
replied that platting the property would be required then each home would require
conditional use approval. He also stated that the applicant did not indicate a desire to
subdivide. She further commented that she had a concern regarding the home
positioned to the rear of the lot and the distance from the home to the north property
line.
Chairman Berg asked Ms. Spragins about the other manufactured homes in the area.
She stated there was one home. Mr. Odom confirmed there was one home with a
mobile home on the same lot. Ms. Spragins remarked that having both homes on one
lot was not visually appealing. She stated the tendency towards locating manufactured
homes in this area should be slowed down.
Mr. Clark reviewed the Review and Evaluation Criteria for conditional use procedures
with the Commission. He specifically commented on two points (B. and C.) that the
Commission may want to consider which would include the number of other
manufactured homes in the area, possible expansion, and compatibility.
Ms. Reeves inquired about the 26 -foot side setback; Mr. Odom responded that in
residential areas the minimum setback is five feet. She also commented on the
aesthetics of one home facing away from the street. Mr. Nelson asked why the home
was positioned to the rear. Mr. Odom responded that the applicant preferred the
wooded view rather than looking at the racetrack and prison. Mr. Rowland asked about
controlling the placement. Mr. Clark responded that if it is incompatible with the area or
its setting is inappropriate, this Commission can place conditions on the approval or
deny the request.
Planning & Zoning Commission ♦ April 9, 2003
Ms. Reeves stated she could not support this request unless the manufactured home is
turned toward the street. She commented that the issue concerns the positioning rather
than the appropriateness of the manufactured home.
Mr. Nelson asked to have a review of the homes in the area. Ms. Spragins inquired
about the manufactured home and mobile home on one lot. Mr. Odom stated that he
would investigate the legality of the situation.
Mr. Roland Marchand, owner of the barn on Huntington Lane, stated he was against the
placement of the home towards the rear of the lot. He mentioned there are brick
houses on each side of this property.
Mr. Terry Moore, 4523 Huntington Lane, stated he was opposed to the house facing the
rear of the property. He requested that the Commission stipulate the home should face
the street.
Mr. Marchand inquired if a used manufactured home could be located on that property.
Mr. Odom stated the ordinance requires the manufactured home be of new
construction, no used homes.
Ms. Lois Moore, 6307 F.M. 369 North, stated that she owns property that adjoins the
applicant's property on three sides and the farm land behind his property. She stated
her concern was the positioning of the house.
Mr. Sons stated that he questioned the compatibility of a manufactured home in this
area.
Ms. Reeves commented that there are no covenants restricting manufactured homes in
this area. She stated there was nothing this Commission could do. Mr. Clark informed
her that the denial of this conditional use permit would prohibit the installation of this
manufactured home. Ms. Reeves stated she would deny the permit.
Mr. Nelson stated he considered the neighbors comments carefully; 80% of those
notified were either opposed, undecided or had comments. He continued by
commenting that was a strong voice. In addition, the neighbors in attendance of this
meeting have brought up important points to consider. Mr. Nelson stated that he was
leaning toward incompatibility with the neighborhood and not approving of the
positioning of the manufactured home.
Chairman Berg agreed that the home should face the street. He commented that if it
were turned towards Huntington, he would not have a problem. He stated a
manufactured housing was designed to provide affordable and economical residences.
Ms. Reeves clarified the types of surrounding homes — south of the barn, there are two
brick houses. Placing a manufactured home on this lot will set a precedence for this
type of housing to continue, especially on the two vacant lots between the manufactured
home and the barn.
Planning & Zoning Commission • April 9, 2003
Mr. Clark reminded the Commission and the audience that annexation of this area
allows this type of forum. Prior to annexation, a manufactured home could have been
installed without review.
There was discussion among the Commission members that brick homes are the
precedence in that area. It was mentioned that the citizens that commented had no
problem with the manufactured home but objected to the positioning of it. Mr. Barr
stated that brick homes are not always affordable. He further commented that he would
approve the manufactured home if it were turned to face Huntington. Mr. Birck stated
he was also in favor of the home. Mr. Rowland remarked that a manufactured home
was not compatible with the surrounding brick homes. Ms. Reeves stated that in 20
years, a brick home is still nice; she cannot make the same comment about
manufactured homes.
Mr. Birck made a motion to amend the original motion to require that the manufactured
home face the front of the lot. Mr. Barr seconded the motion. The vote was seven in
favor and two opposed.
The amended motion to approve the manufactured home with the condition that the
home face Huntington Road was voted on; three were in favor and six opposed. The
motion failed.
9. Re- establish a Go -cart Track
3300 -3310 Sheppard Access Road
Case C 03 -20
Applicant ....... ............................... Henry Baldwin
Requested Action ........................ Conditional Use Permit
Purpose ........ ............................... Re- establish a go -cart track operation — outdoor
entertainment.
Property ........ ............................... 3300 -3310 Sheppard Access Road
Existing Land Use ........................ Go -Cart track vacant over two years
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning. N: Self Storage, GC
S: Vacant Land, GC, LI
E: Vacant Land, VFW, GC
W: Vacant Land, LI
Analysis:
The applicant wishes to re -open this go -cart track that has been closed for more than
two years. Outdoor entertainment, such as a go -cart track, requires a conditional use
permit. The business will operate with the same 15 go -carts that were used previously.
This area is zoned General Commercial, and is adjacent to storage buildings and
vacant land. The nearest residences are in a mobile home park located approximately
450 feet away across Spur 325. About 350 feet east of this site is the VFW club. As is
the case citywide, this use would be subject to city nuisance and noise ordinances.
Planning & Zoning Commission ♦ April 9, 2003
Recommendation:
Staff feels that this use is compatible with the surrounding area and recommends
approval of this project.
Developmental Requirements:
This project will be subject to all developmental requirements including the installation of
landscaping and provision of hard surface paved parking.
Mr. Barr made a motion to approve this conditional use request. Mr. Sons seconded
the motion.
Four surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One replied in favor
and none were opposed.
Mr. Henry Baldwin, 233 Florence Drive, stated he would like to purchase the property
and establish a go -cart track, if this Commission grants approval.
Mr. Powers asked if the landscaping ordinance would apply. Chairman Berg stated that
it would be required as well as hard surface paving would also need to be installed. Mr.
Barr commented that it is an outstanding idea, especially since it is within walking
distance of Sheppard Air Force Base.
The vote was unanimous in favor of approval.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
1. City Council Update
Mr. Clark stated the Council approved the amendment of the Accessory Use Regulation
in the Zoning Ordinance. He further commented that Council approved the Subdivision
Regulations as well as the Penalties Section, which would permit up to a $2,000 fine on
violations. The rezoning at Airport Drive and Burkburnett Road was approved.
2. Discussion of Items of Concern to Members of the P &Z Commission
Mr. Birck commented that Hamilton Street, by the tennis park, is very congested at
times. Sometimes it is restricted to one lane with cars in the opposite direction having
to wait. He stated he has also seen adult and children pedestrians darting out from
between parked cars. He asked that staff review this situation.
There was discussion regarding carports. Councilor Burns gave a summary of the
history of the carport process relating to Council and P &Z. In the last five years, the
procedure has been streamlined and is more efficient than the previous approval
process. Mr. Clark stated that carports in the front yard setback require a conditional
use process and this Commission has the right to deny a carport. Mr. Birck commented
that the appearance of the carport should be considered, especially whether the carport
maintains the architectural design and integrity of the house and surrounding houses.
Chairman Berg stated that 90% of carport requests come from areas where there are
currently carports in the neighborhood. Mr. Odom stated that at one time carports were
not allowed; this procedure is actually a compromise which will permit carports.
Planning & Zoning Commission ♦ April 9, 2003
VII. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
Cliff Berg, Chairman
ATTEST:
Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator
Planning & Zoning Commission • April 9, 2003
Date
Date