Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 12/10/2003MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
December 10, 2003
PRESENT:
Cliff Berg, Chairman
Charles Barr
J. C. Bradberry
Cayce Cleary
L. O. Nelson
Patrick Powers
Bill Rowland
Ken Birck
Johnny Burns, Council Liaison
David A. Clark, Director
Marty Odom, Planner II
Paul Stillson, Planner II
Diane Parker
ABSENT:
Steve Lane
Rusty Sons
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Berg at 2:00 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Date �� `� ✓
By ,(! TiMf ,2_ CY-221-
• Members
• Alternate #2
♦ Alternate #1
•
♦ City Staff
♦ Members
Ms. Cleary made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 12, 2003 meeting. Mr.
Bradberry seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote.
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:
Standard Conditions of Approval for Preliminary Plats
Provide utility and drainage easements as required by utility companies and the Director of
Public Works.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 2003 PAGE 1
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. High Point Village, 8`h Revised (Dec. 2003)
a. Show bold line around unplatted areas.
b. Staff recommends rezoning residential lots to SF -2.
C. Provide a statement on the plat: "Developments may be subject to Kickapoo Air
Park height restrictions."
d. Label road as "West Rathgeber Road."
e. No neighborhood park. Kids would play in the streets due to no playground
available. Could the noted electric line R.O.W be used for a trail or playground?
(Parks)
f. Additional easements may be needed on final plat for each development.
(ONCOR)
g. Extend water and sewer to serve all proposed lots.(Public Works)
h. Construct internal streets and drainage in according to city ordinance and criteria.
i. Provide stormwater detention according to city ordinance and critera. (Public
Works)
j. Include a scale for the small reduction. (Public Works)
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.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 2003 PAGE 2
1. Expressway Village, Section 23, Block 18, Lots 23 -43 (Dec. 2003)
a. Provide utility slips.
b. Remove R.O.W. line along Colonial Court.
C. Provide a name for unnamed street and label "Herein Dedicated."
d. Extend water and sewer to serve all proposed lots. (Public Works)
e. Construct internal streets and drainage according to city ordinance and criteria.
(Public Works)
f. Comply with curb and gutter and escrow provisions of city ordinance. (Public
Works)
g. No utility easements shown on plat (SBC)
h. Additional easements are needed prior to approve final plat, Oncor will contact
Biggs and Mathews regarding additional easements. ( Oncor)
2. High Point Village, Block 2, Lot 14, (Dec. 2003)
a. Show easements along east and west line as per preliminary plat.
b. Provide a statement on the plat: "Developments may be subject to Kickapoo Air
Park height restrictions."
C. Label road as "West Rathgeber Road."
d. Area has not been reviewed for suitability for septic system, if proposed, contact
Health Dept. (Health)
e. Extend water and sewer to serve all proposed lots. (Public Works)
f. Construct internal streets and drainage according to city ordinance and criteria.
g. Include a scale for small drawing. (Public Works)
h. Provide stormwater detention according to City ordinance and criteria. (Public
Works)
3. Sandra Gail Subdivision No. 3, Block 3 -A, Lots 2 -C & 7 -A [replat] (Dec. 2003)
a. Provide utility slips.
b. Contact TXDot for approval of any curb cuts along Sheppard Access Road.
C. Final plat is covered by a blanket easement for all Oncor/TXU gas facilities that
are existing and to be installed within the platted properties, lots, block, etc.
( Oncor)
d. Extend water and sewer to serve all proposed lots. (Public Works)
e. Construct internal streets and drainage according to city ordinance. (Public
Works)
f. Provide stormwater detention according to the city ordinance and criteria. (Public
Works)
g. Comply with curb and gutter and escrow provisions of city ordinance.
h. Include a scale for small drawing. (Public Works)
4. Summerfield Estates, Unit 5 -B, Block 7, Lot 55 -B (Dec. 2003)
a. Label right -of -way width of Blue Stem and Bayberry Drive.
b. Description should read "Lot" rather than "Lots."
C. Show adjacent 7.5 -foot easement on Lot 54.
d. Extend water and sewer to serve proposed lot. (Public Works)
e. Construct any internal streets and drainage according to city ordinance and
criteria. (Public Works)
f. Acceptable if they use city sewer. (Health)
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 2003 PAGE 3
5. Windthorst Road Addition, Block 1, Lot 2 (Dec. 2003)
a. Provide utility slips.
b. Extend water and sewer to serve proposed lot. (Public Works)
C. Construct any internal streets and drainage according to city ordinance and
criteria. (Public Works)
Mr. Bradberry 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 C 03 -75
Carport
3803 Yuma Trail
Mr. Max Williams requested a conditional use permit for a carport in the front setback at his
residence. There are three properties within 200 feet of his home that have carports in the front.
Twenty -four surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Seven responded in
favor, none were opposed, and one responded as having no opinion or undecided.
Ms. Cleary made a motion to approve this carport. Mr. Bradberry seconded. The vote was
unanimous in favor of approval for the carport.
2. Case C 03 -76
Carport
2018 Allen Road
Mr. Jack Hunter requested a conditional use permit to construct a carport in the front setback at
his residence. A previous carport request was approve by this Commission in 2001; however,
the applicant was unable to construct the carport within the one year time limit. There is one
property within 200 feet of the applicant's property with a carport in the front setback.
Thirteen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Nine responded in favor and
none were opposed.
Mr. Rowland made a motion to approve this carport request. Mr. Nelson seconded. The vote
was unanimous in favor of approval.
3. Case R 03 -12
Rezoning from Single Family -1 and Heavy Industrial to General Commercial
30 Acres out of Abstract A -414 Along the South Side of Reilly Road
Jim and Teresa Leugemors requested a rezoning of 21.75 acres located near the southwest
corner of the intersection of Reilly Road and Central Freeway from Single Family -1 to General
Commercial. This property was annexed into the City as Single Family -1 in 1999. The
applicants indicated the future use of this property would be for a dog kennel, which would
require conditional use approval once the rezoning is approved by City Council.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 2003 PAGE 4
Staff recommended approval and suggested the rezoning request include 8.25 acres to the east
which would result in a down zoning from Heavy Industrial to General Commercial. A
convenience store is located on this tract. Staff felt future development would lean towards GC
uses rather than HI on this property. Mr. Clark noted that the irregular HI zoning line was the
previous City limit line.
Mr. Bradberry made a motion to recommend approval of this rezoning to City Council. Ms.
Cleary seconded. Mr. Rowland made a motion to amend the land use plan reflecting this zoning
change, from low- density residential to GC. Mr. Barr seconded. The vote was unanimous in
favor of approval for both motions.
4. Case C 03 -66
480' Communication Tower
3904 Lawrence Road
This case was previously heard at the November Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
where it was tabled pending the applicant's research for more information regarding setbacks
and fall characteristics.
Results from the November notification of twelve surrounding property owners were one in
favor and none opposed. Since that meeting, staff received additional reply forms from property
owners in the notification area. The final total is one in favor and four opposed.
Mr. Bradberry made a motion to approve the 480 foot tower. Ms. Cleary seconded.
Mr. Matt Benoit, Assistant City Manager for the City of Wichita Falls, stated that FAA approval
has been received for a 499 -foot tower at the proposed location. He stated that the City is
seeking approval of a 480 -foot tower to accommodate co- location. The actual height required
for radio communications and public safety coverage would be 375 feet. He presented a
footprint for the 375 -feet tower. He stated the setbacks are met on all sides except the north
side. Chairman Berg asked if the fall area were less than half of height of the tower would it be
accommodated at this location. Mr. Benoit stated on the west there is adequate space but, on
the north side of the property, there is not foot - for -foot distance if the tower were to fall. He
stated there is no guarantee by the manufacturer but this tower is designed to crumble not fall
over in one piece. Mr. Benoit reviewed the new setbacks— west, 400 feet; north, 250 -275 feet;
east and south are not an issue.
Ms. Cleary asked if the City still proposed to lease space on the tower. Mr. Benoit replied that
the smaller, 375 -foot tower could accommodate lease space but it would not be prime space.
Chairman Berg asked if the City was flexible if the 375 -foot tower was approved; Mr. Benoit
replied in the positive.
Chairman Berg asked if this new location would hinder the Maplewood Extension. Mr. Clark
stated that a change made dimensionally would not affect a proposed roadway.
Mr. John Hirschi, 2911 Sturdevant, stated that the transfer station property has become
extremely valuable over the last few years. It was originally constructed on an undeveloped
tract in an industrial area but changes have dramatically occurred, such as Lowe's, Super
WalMart, Home Depot, and Sam's Wholesale. He stated the surrounding landowners have
concern for property values. He stated it is unusual that the City would want to encumber a tract
of land worth $8 -10 per square foot. This area is impacted with traffic now and that will increase
— shoppers mixed with trucks pulling trailers full of debris. It appears that the City would be
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 2003 PAGE 5
forced to move the transfer station in the future; however, with the tower located on that site, it's
redevelopment value would be compromised for commercial use.
Chairman Berg asked if the City has considered relocating the transfer station. Mr. Jim Berzina,
City Manager, stated that, 20 years ago, he was questioned regarding the City's commitment for
the transfer station to not be considered a detriment at the Lawrence Street location.
Landscaping plans were completed and the transfer station is now one of the better features on
Lawrence. It fits in and is not the eyesore that the public thought it might be. He stated that
location on Lawrence Street was the selected site for the construction of the transfer station and
it remains the place for its location. If it were moved in any direction, citizens might not use the
transfer station because of traffic situations — to the south, it becomes useless; to the north, it
becomes a long drive for citizens; to the west, it loses its utility because of the proximity of the
landfill; any area of the City would create dissension. There is no area in the City where it would
be as effective. The transfer station is located where it belongs.
Chairman Berg asked if other sites were considered. Mr. Benoit replied that the vendor also
proposed the site of Fire Station #8, near Maplewood and Miller. Cypress Water Treatment
Plant was considered as well as a co- location near the tower farm on Seymour Highway. The
determination of location has to do with communications and the safety coverage of the City.
Mr. Dick Bundy, co -owner in adjacent property on Lawrence, stated he voted for the Lawrence
Road location for the transfer station. When it passed, Kell Blvd. had not been constructed and
it took a long time to drive to the west side of Wichita Falls. He stated that, from an economic
standpoint, he felt the transfer station would eventually be moved. Mr. Bundy stated he wanted
to encourage the City to consider other locations for the tower. He commented that Lawrence
Road is one of the hottest retail locations in the City and the County. The tower will have a
negative impact on adjacent property and potential development. He encouraged the City to
consider other areas where 1,000 -foot towers are located. Mr. Bundy stated that large sums of
money and time were spent removing old utility infrastructure in the Stone Lake area. He
iterated that the Lawrence Road area is an active, hot retail area in the City. He asked the City
to consider another area of the City.
Chairman Berg asked if the Lawrence site was the only location available. Mr. Benoit stated
there are 1,000 to 1,200 foot towers located on Seymour Highway between the two television
stations. He explained that taller towers lack coverage for an area under the tower. Other
locations would not provide needed coverage. The vendor originally proposed a 500 -foot tower
at the tower farm on Seymour Highway which necessitated the tower at Fire Station #8. The
vendor stated a tower in the southwest part of Wichita Falls could not be avoided. Mr. Nelson
asked if there would be more towers that are a part of this communication system. Mr. Benoit
stated water towers as well as the jail annex off U. S. 287 would be utilized. Other sites, in
addition to co- location, were researched by the vendor.
Mr. Birck asked if the land would be leased for the tower. Mr. Benoit stated the tower would be
located on City property. Mr. Birck then asked if the transfer station land were sold, could the
tower be moved. Mr. Benoit stated that the City Manager has emphatically stated that situation
would not exist.
Mr. Berzina acknowledged that the location of the tower would compound the sale of the
Lawrence Road transfer station site. He commented that, from an operational standpoint, the
tower belongs on that site. Responding to the suggestion of moving the transfer station, he
noted there would be environmental regulations, hearings, testing, and the loss of the
functionality of the system. Those factors might not make it financially feasible to relocate the
transfer station. He continued by stating if the Police and Fire Depts. are going to have
adequate radio system coverage, the tower must locate on Lawrence Road. If the transfer
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 2003 PAGE 6
station site were sold, there would be a further issue of down time for crucial safety coverage of
the citizens. If the transfer station were moved, the costs of sanitation services would be
increased. Mr. Birck stated that ideas and priorities do change. As Lawrence Road becomes
more congested, cars pulling trailers and pickup trucks will have a difficult time exiting from the
transfer station.
Mr. Bobby Schaaf, Domain Realty, stated that when the transfer station was constructed twenty
years ago, this area was industrial. It was predicted that the retail establishments would locate
on Southwest Parkway. New retail consisting of 1,000,000 square feet has located within 1,000
feet of the tower's proposed location. He predicted that the tower could impede development
plus has a chance of falling on the proposed Maplewood Extension. Mr. Schaaf continued by
stating the Kmart building is in contract with new retail; this area is not slowing down. He stated
this is a wrong choice of location.
Mr. Nelson asked how it would impact the surrounding property. Mr. Schaaf stated it is primarily
aesthetics; it (the tower) is a large industrial flag. He complimented the landscaping around the
transfer station. Mr. Nelson stated the zoning is appropriate, and the request is for a conditional
use permit on property that the applicant owns. This request would be difficult to deny. Mr.
Nelson asked how this tower would impact the surrounding development. Mr. Schaaf stated
that in the 1,000,000 square feet of retail, the City is reindustrializing property.
Mr. Birck inquired about other cities with towers constructed in retail locations. Mr. Clark stated
that a new residential development, Canyon Trails, was constructed off Seymour Highway with
towers already in existence nearby. A new residential subdivision is now under contruction
immediately adjacent to Channel 6 area towers. Another tower considered by this Commission
at the north end of downtown is barely noticeable when driving by. Also, the tower at 12'h Street
and Lamar is not prominent unless specifically referenced.
Chairman Berg stated that the November meeting had more opposition to the height of the tower
with fallback radius crossing property boundaries. With a reduced tower height, that problem is
eliminated but it does not seem to satisfy Mr. Schaaf `s development concerns. Chairman Berg
asked Mr. Hirschi to address the impact this tower might have to his property. Mr. Hirschi stated
there is negativity created by the tower. He stated he felt Maplewood Extension should proceed
but obstacles slowing down development in this area could impede the construction of
Maplewood Extension. The tax revenue generated from the 1,000,000 square feet of Lawrence
Road retail makes moving the transfer station and relocating the tower a miniscule expense. He
noted the City and the citizens are tremendously benefiting from this new tax revenue. Mr.
Hirschi thoroughly recapped potential traffic hazards on Lawrence concerning the transfer
station. He expressed dismay that the Seymour tower farm or other City property could not
utilized.
Mr. Howard Morris stated he served on the City Council when Mr. Berzina was hired and when
the transfer station location was decided. He commented that it was understandable the City
would want to locate the tower at the transfer station for economical reasons. He questioned
whether that was the only location available for the tower. He urged the City to review the
consultants' comments to determine if other locations could be considered. He agreed with
Messrs. Schaaf and Hirschi that the City was re- industrializing an area that had turned into
heavy retail. Mr. Morris informed the Commission that he thought the transfer station was built
before Wichita Falls adopted zoning and zoning classification of Light Industrial was assigned to
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 2003 PAGE 7
that area because of the transfer station. Mr. Morris stated there should be another City
property that would be available for the tower's location that would not affect a strong
commercial area.
Chairman Berg commented that there are three issues of concern-
1 . Retailers built on or near Lawrence Road knowing of the transfer station's location
but knew nothing of the proposed tower; and
2. Consideration of alternate locations for the tower, City owned or for the City to
acquire; and
3. The Commission has not seen the consultants' study.
Mr. Nelson questioned the City's response to the tower and its effect on surrounding
development. Mr. Benoit stated development has happened despite the transfer station's
location. Other locations mentioned at this meeting would cause the tower to not cover an area
of town; for example, if the tower were to locate further west, the east end of Southwest Parkway
would not be covered. Another tower, an eighth tower, would be required. Mr. Berzina stated
he is concerned about all citizens in the City, not just the property owners on Lawrence Road.
The deciding factor for the City was not that the land was already owned by the City, but this
location minimizes the investment for this communication system to function.
Mr. Birck asked Mr. Schaaf if the transfer station or the tower would effect his property. Mr.
Schaaf replied that development on Lawrence Road has happened to the north of the transfer
station. It has been a struggle to get development to move south on Lawrence. He stated he
believed eventually both sides of Lawrence Road would fill in with retail. It appears that the
transfer station has not been a deterrent to development. A communications tower will send a
signal to the public that the transfer station is not going to move. Mr. Birck then asked if Kell
Blvd. was the draw for WalMart, Sam's, Lowes, and Circuit City's locations. Mr. Schaaf stated
he did not want to suggest that the transfer station caused property to not be sold on Lawrence
Road but a tower would be a red flag. Mr. Schaaf asked if multifamily apartments were to be
built on the 14 acre tract next to the tower, would it require rezoning. Mr. Clark stated it would
require a rezoning. Mr. Schaaf stated that a tower would be a ominous aspect to a multifamily
community. Chairman Berg stated that the tower would not preclude multifamily residences and
the tower would not play a part in his decision.
Mr. Powers stated he has traveled extensively and cannot think of another city that has a tower
of this size in prime commercial area, especially an area that is growing. It is an "eyesore" and
there must be an alternative (location). Ms. Cleary stated that Oklahoma City has towers
located everywhere. She stated it was not necessarily an eyesore and that retailers still locate
there. Mr. Powers reiterated that the tower was an "eyesore" and he was against constructing it
on transfer station site.
Chairman Berg asked about the lighting on the tower and its surrounding effect on businesses
and multifamily residences. Mr. Clark stated that the tower would be surrounded by commercial
activity with the closest residential area on the south side of Call Field Road. Mr. Bundy stated
that towers are ugly; he suggested moving it to a park by the lake. It will effect development
along Lawrence Road. He pleaded with the Commission to make sure this is the right location
for the tower. Chairman Berg agreed and further stated that he felt he did not have enough
information to make a decision.
Mr. Nelson stated there are four people opposed to this tower. There was an article in the
newspaper regarding this issue; however, there are no citizens from McNeil or Call Field Road
at this meeting to protest the Lawrence Road location.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 2003 PAGE 8
Mr. Powers remarked that we are trying to overcome the ugly reputation this City has. With out -
of -town visitors to Wichita Falls shopping in this area, this tower would be visible. He stressed
again it would be an eyesore. Mr. Birck stated that not all towers are able to locate out of the
City limits. There are downtown buildings with towers on them. He agreed with Chairman Berg
with wanting to review the consultants' study for location suggestions. He noted that houses
have sold in spite of the television towers on Seymour Highway.
Mr. Powers questioned whether this study was performed by the manufacturer or an
independent consultant. Mr. Berzina replied the first site was Wood Park across from Sikes. He
felt there would be tremendous opposition to this location. Kiwanis and Lake Wichita Parks
were also reviewed but the coverage to the east part of the City was lost. This tower must be
located within a one -half mile radius of the transfer station for appropriate coverage. The
consultants have chosen this location. If it's not located here, the City would require more
towers of different heights located around the City.
Mr. Barr stated he lives near the television towers and only notices them when there are high
winds and the towers can be heard. Mr. Chuck Dennis is building a new subdivision in this
immediate area and does not seem to object to the towers. Mr. Barr stressed that the homes
are not devalued in this area because of the tower.
Mr. Schaaf inquired about Tesco Park use for the tower's location. He suggested if the tower
crumbles (when it falls), he did not see a reason for the homeowners' objections. Mr. Benoit
stated that the zoning was inappropriate. Chairman Berg inquired about rezoning parks. Mr.
Clark stated that rezoning or eliminating a park could create strong neighborhood responses.
Ms. Cleary noted that there are houses directly across from the Park.
Mr. Berzina acknowledged the Commission needed more information regarding this tower. He
also stated that the last time softball fields were relocated, the City spent one million dollars.
When property uses are disrupted, there is a cost to the City and the citizens.
Chairman Berg stated he was not convinced that there are not other sites for this tower. Mr.
Benoit commented that the issue appears to be that coverage would have to be sacrificed or
that the tower ordinance is ineffective. Rezoning does not appear to be the answer. The world
has become digital and wireless; tower issues are more prevalent today. A precedence of
rezoning an area specifically for a tower should not be set. The transfer station is zoned
appropriately and offers coverage for the entire city. He stressed that it is a public concern that
we should live within the established rules.
Chairman Berg stated that towers are not attractive; he lives within sight of the Channel 6 tower
and it does not effect him. He summarized the comments made by Messrs. Berzina and Benoit.
Rezoning property to accommodate a tower should be a concern to this Commission; he stated
there could be numerous requests for spot zoning submitted for tower locations. Chairman Berg
stated that based on the facts heard at this meeting, he would consider voting for the tower
because there is no alternative. He would also vote to reduce the height because, if there were
the slightest chance the tower could fall on adjacent property, it would be undevelopable. Ms.
Cleary stated that a tower in a commercial area would not be that detrimental. Mr. Powers
stated he would like to see three other options for location before making a decision. He stated
that the Lawrence Road area is an important economic location for the City. Mr. Nelson stated
that it appears all parties have done extensive research on the location; he stated that the
benefits (of this location) outweigh the risks. Mr. Rowland commented that he would like to see
the consultants' study. He stated he would like to consider the costs involved with constructing
more than one tower. Mr. Benoit stated that costs average $500,000 to $600,000 per tower.
The grounding and switch control equipment is the expensive portion, not the steel construction.
Mr. Birck stated that he did not believe the construction of a tower on Lawrence Road would
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 2003 PAGE 9
cause re- industrialization of that area. He continued by stating there would be opposition
regardless of the location of the tower. He commented that he would be in favor of the tower if
voted on at this meeting. Mr. Birck stressed the importance of considering the issue of public
safety for the citizenry. Mr. Barr stated he did not consider the tower detrimental to the retail
businesses in that area. He stated he did not have a problem with this location.
Chairman Berg commented that he disliked tabling requests brought before this Commission;
however, the importance of this issue should be a concern. He stated more information from the
consultants regarding location should be reviewed.
Mr. Rowland made a motion to table the decision regarding this request in lieu of obtaining more
information. Mr. Powers seconded. The vote was unanimously approved; eight in favor and
none opposed.
Mr. Benoit stated he would forward the tower ordinance, a zoning map, and comments from this
meeting to the consultants with their response for the January meeting.
5. Case R 03 -13
Rezoning from Single Family -2 and Limited Commercial to General Commercial
1515 Fifteenth Street; 1517, 1519 & 1521 Elizabeth Avenue; 1601, 1603, 1605 &
1607 Grace Street and the Alley Rights -of -Way Adjacent to 1607 Grace and 1519
Elizabeth Avenue
The applicants have requested this rezoning application from Single Family -2 and one lot
currently zoned Limited Commercial to all lots being zoned General Commercial. Staff concerns
were based on the configuration of lots, project plans have not been submitted, and two lots
would be considered spot zoning; staff did not recommend approval of this request. The land
use plans designates this area as low density residential.
Thirty property owners were notified of this request. Nine responded in favor and one was
opposed.
Mr. Rowland made a motion to recommend approval of this request to City Council. Mr.
Bradberry seonded.
Mr. Jon Moller, representative for the applicants, stated he is seeking approval of this
application. He submitted a packet to the Commission members. Mr. Moller reviewed that
information by stating the lots considered spot zoning should be considered as a benefit to the
other properties in the group and these would be valid spot zonings. He stated he would like to
market these properties as General Commercial to the development community. Mr. Moller
commented that 1515 Fifteenth Street is a small lot, less than the 5,000 square feet required for
SF development. He noted that the owner of the LC lot, 1517 Elizabeth, asked Mr. Moller to
make her comments part of the audio record of the meeting. In summary, she stated she was
not responsible for the substandard street or the zoning determinations of her property. When
she purchased property, 1519 Elizabeth, from the City, she was not informed of the substandard
property or told it must remain in a blighted condition. Mr. Moller stated her comments included
that the lot could have been rehabilitated but the City left no alternative but to remain blighted.
Mr. Moller further reviewed the contents of information submitted to the Commission.
Chairman Berg stated that it is obvious that 1515 Fifteenth Street is spot zoning. The property
at 1517 Elizabeth appears to be split with two proposed different zonings. Mr. Moller replied that
applications for some of the properties were not received by the City's deadline for processing.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 2003 PAGE 10
Mr. Clark stated that this is an unusual request because all the property applications were not
submitted at one time, and some have not been received as of this meeting making the request
appear as spot zoning. There is concern by staff because there does not appear to be a project
planned for this rezoning request. Chairman Berg asked if the two spot zoning lots were
removed from the request if staff would be in favor of this request. Mr. Clark replied that the
concern would be for access into a development by a substandard street. Mr. Odom
commented that rezoning without a plan is considered a speculative rezoning and not a favored
planning practice.
Mr. Moller stated that he cannot expect a serious, valued consideration for these properties
without endorsement from the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council. He continued
by stating that the substandard street should be purchased and redeveloped along with the rest
of these properties. Chairman Berg stated that these properties should have been replatted into
one tract then submitted under one rezoning request. Mr. Moller it appears that the substandard
conditions are generating inaction. Elizabeth Street should not be the main access. He is
requesting a change in order for his buyer to concentrate on how to develop the properties.
Mr. Birck asked about the City's objection to rezoning the triangle at 1517 and 1519 Fifteenth
Street. Mr. Clark replied that is single lot rezoning. He reiterated his point about bringing in all
lots at the same time rather than piecemeal. Mr. Birck noted that there was opposition from the
single owner of 1507, 1511, and 1513 Fifteenth Street.
Mr. Nelson asked if there would be a problem removing the two lots considered spot zoning.
Mr. Moller stated he wanted to go as far with this zoning change as he could. Mr. Nelson stated
that this appears to be a multi -part rezoning request and suggested rezoning these properties in
a logical sequence rather than have problems with spot zoning. Mr. Moller commented that he
would like to keep all of Barbara Miller's property in the rezoning proposal. Chairman Berg
stated that he would consider this rezoning request if the two lots were removed. He also
commented that, if a project plan had been submitted, there might be different feelings toward
the request. Mr. Moller agreed to withdraw 1515 Fifteenth Street and 1517 Elizabeth Street.
Mr. Syd Litteken, architect, stated that a prospective buyer probably would not consider this
property until there was a commitment to sell the property as a whole and an equal commitment
from the City concerning access and street construction.
Mr. Nelson suggested Mr. Moller submit rezoning proposals after all properties are in agreement
and not rush the process by submitting sporadic segments of land. Mr. Birck stated the only
way to salvage these properties would be General Commercial zoning. He agreed with
removing the two lots and proceeding with the larger block of land.
Chairman Berg stated that any of the existing lots zoned General Commercial are subject to
being sold for a specific GC use, such as a car wash. Mr. Moller stated that the property would
be devalued if a property owner were to sell his property singly. Mr. Moller assured the
Commission he had agreements with the property owners.
An amended motion was made by Mr. Nelson that does not include 1517 Elizabeth and 1515
Fifteenth Street and that the land use plan be amended. Mr. Rowland seconded. The vote was
unanimous in favor of approval of the amended motion.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 2003 PAGE 11
6. Case C 03 -74
Development of a Contractor's Yard /Storage Building
1400, 1402, 1410 33`d Street
The applicant, Mr. Bob Oden, is requesting permission to construct a secondary building
containing an office, workshop, rest rooms, and equipment storage area next to his mechanical
contractors' warehouse at 1410 33rd Street.
Forty -one surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Six replied in favor and
none were opposed.
Ms. Cleary made a motion to approve this request. Mr. Nelson seconded
Chairman Berg asked the Mr. Oden if he was in agreement with the condition that the front
building setback conform with the surrounding buildings and not be less than 18 feet. He replied
positively.
The vote was unanimous in favor of approval.
7. Case C 03 -77
Expansion of an Existing Religious Assembly Use
4608 Coronado Avenue
The applicant, Mr. Syd Litteken architect for the Southwest Baptist Church, requested approval
to construct a building to use for offices, meeting rooms, gymnasium, and educational activities.
Eighteen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Four responded in favor
and none were opposed.
Mr. Nelson made a motion to approve this request. Ms. Cleary seconded.
Mr. Litteken stated he was aware of the developmental requirements.
The vote was unanimous in favor of approval of this request.
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Bob Oden asked why the water running in the ditch next to his property on 33rd Street could
not be captured and treated. Mr. Barr stated that water running off from the asphalt streets is
too contaminated to be treated. Mr. Oden stated he would like to use this water for irrigation.
Mr. Clark stated this question would be passed along to the Director of Public Works.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
1. City Council Update
Mr. Clark stated that the ordinance to update the lots and setbacks was not approved at City
Council. He stated Council preferred 30 foot setbacks.
The self- storage /mini- warehouse ordinance was passed.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 2003 PAGE 12
The Thoroughfare Plan was approved with the suggestion that further consideration of requiring
wider right -of -way on Airport Drive from Spur 325 to Sheppard Access Road also be considered.
2. Items of Concern
Landscaping
Mr. Clark stated that letters were prepared to send to commercial establishments with
landscaping problems; however, the City was experiencing a drought situation. The mailing was
postponed until the City recovers.
Neighborhood Meeting — Rezoning Kemp
Mr. Clark stated there was a good turnout from the citizens. He stated it was felt that the change
from Limited Commercial to General Commercial was a big step to take and perhaps and in-
between zone should be considered. The citizens were positive about the requirements —
landscaping, setbacks, etc. The citizenry expressed a desire to see quality development.
VII. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:02 p.m.
Cliff Berg, Chairman
ATTEST:
David A. Clark, Director
Date
Date
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 2003 PAGE 13