Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 05/13/2009MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
May 13, 2009
PRESENT:
Ripley Tate, Chairman
♦ Members
Larry Ash
•
Warren Gardner
•
John Kidwell
•
L. O. Nelson
•
Deborah Morrow
•
R. C. Taylor
♦ Alternate #2
John Stephenson
•
Charles Elmore ♦ Council Liaison
Kinley Hegglund, Senior Assist. City Attorney ♦ Legal Depart.
David A. Clark, Director of Community Development ♦ City Staff
Marty Odom, Planner •
Diane Parker •
ABSENT:
Jeff Cooper ♦ Alternate #1
Kevin Callahan •
Jeremy Dorzab
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tate at 2:00 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Gardner made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 8, 2009 meeting. Mr.
Stephenson seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote.
III. CONSENT AGENDA
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:
V
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 2
Standard Conditions of Approval for Final Plats
MAY 13, 2009
Provide utility and drainage easements as required by utility companies and Director of
Public Works.
Submit water and sewer plans; street; sidewalk; and drainage plans to the Director of
Public Works and water plans to the Fire Marshall. 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 & Transportation.
Note: Approval of a plat does not imply approval of development of property in violation
of the Zoning Ordinance.
1. DOUBLE T RANCH, LOT 1 (April 2009)
a. Provide utility slips.
b. Label survey lines
c. Indicate volume and page of previously dedicated ROW.
d. Replace color location map with reproducible black and white location
map.
e. Show the existing 100 year floodplain delineation on the plat.
f. Show city limits lines on the plat
g. Water lines may be required to be extended to serve all proposed lots.
(Public Works)
h. Comply with storm water detention requirements in accordance with
City Ordinance and Criteria. (Public Works)
i. Additional utility easements are required on property perimeter.
(ONCOR)
j. Coordinate with The Wichita County Water Improvement District No. 2
to show and or dedicate drainage easements.
k. All access points onto State maintained roadways shall be approved
by TxDOT.
2. PATRIOT PLACE, SECTION 2, BLOCK 1, LOTS 1 -8; BLOCK 3, LOTS
1 -9 (May 2009)
a. Show all existing streets on vicinity map
b. Show CY YOUNG DRIVE as previously dedicated
c. Include all off -site easement dedications (i. e. temporary turnaround,
drainage swales, detention ponds, etc.) (Public Works)
d. Extend street system to serve all lots. (Public Works)
e. Comply with storm water detention requirements in accordance with
City Ordinance and Criteria. (Public Works)
f. Extend water and sewer systems for all lots associated with this plat.
(Public Works)
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 3 MAY 13, 2009
CARPORTS:
1. Case C 09 -15
Carport in the Front Setback
402 W. Rogers Drive
Ms. Gewn Bennett requested conditional use approval to construct a carport in the front
setback of her residence on W. Rogers Drive. There are two (2) properties located
within 200 feet of the perimeter of this property with a carport in the front setback.
Fifteen (15) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Three (3)
responded in favor and none (0) were opposed.
Mr. Taylor made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda; Mr. Ash seconded. The
vote was unanimous to approve the items on the Consent Agenda.
IV. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Case C 09 -19
Carport in the Front Setback
4723 Augusta Lane
Mr. Bob Hardy requested conditional use approval to construct a carport in the front
setback of Joy Parsons' home on Augusta Lane. There are four (4) properties located
within 200 feet of the perimeter of this property with a carport in the front setback.
Thirty -four (34) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Four (4)
responded in favor and two (2) were opposed.
Mr. Hardy, 4719 Catalina Drive, stated the carport would be constructed of metal
framing and painted to match the owner's residence. There is a handicap ramp into the
home which will also be covered at the same time.
Mr. Kidwell made a motion to approve this request. Mr. Gardner seconded. The
carport was approved with a unanimous vote.
2. Case C 09 -12
Conditional use approval to allow a 150' tall monopole communications
tower
4447 Southwest Parkway
Conditional use approval was requested to construct a 150' tall monopole
communications tower on a 3.8 acre vacant tract located at 4447 Southwest Parkway.
The ordinance requires that the setback from adjacent property lines be equal to the
height of the tower. The site plan shows that the proposed location of the tower will
meet the setback requirements to the north and south; however, the setbacks from the
east and west property lines are 58'. A reduced setback may be considered if
engineering data is provided showing that the fall characteristics are such that, if a
collapse were to occur, the tower would be contained on the subject's property. The
applicant had provided documentation showing a fall radius of 57'.
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 4 MAY 13, 2009
Thirteen (13) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. None (0)
responded in favor; four (4) were opposed; and, one (1) responded opposed which was
located outside the notification area.
Mr. Mark Ray of Lubbock, Texas, representative for NTCH Tower Development, stated
he has constructed one tower in the area near Lake Wellington for Cleartalk, a flat rate
cell phone service. He stated this business is licensed by FCC in the 2100 mHz range.
Cellular frequency was original 800 mHz then 1900 mHz and space keeps clearing for
more service to 2100 mHz. The higher frequency emits a weaker signal with
compromised integrity. It does not penetrate trees, glass, brick, and buildings as well
as lower frequencies. The need to be at a higher elevation lets the signal transmit
down as opposed to transmitting through obstacles.
Mr. Ray continued by stating that Cleartalk is licensed to have their own set of
frequencies in order to not interfere with other frequencies. He commented that all the
zoning requirements have been met.
As far as some of the objections received from neighborhood comments, Mr. Ray
stated that a Maryland Court has recently ruled that cell phones do not cause cancer.
He stated he deals with hospitals on a regular basis regarding the frequency that is
used. The tower weighs 13,000 lbs. and is held under ground by concrete and steel.
Breaks usually happen at the taller, weaker joints. He commented that he felt that this
application complied with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Mr. Ray replied to Mr. David Gossom's [written] concerns that there are no towers in the
area with which to co- locate; the tower height is 25% less than the recommended
height; it is a monopole and not a lattice tower; it is not required by FAA to be lighted;
there are no antenna farms within the area on which to locate; there will be no guy
wires; there are no known breeding, feeding or roosting areas on this tract; there will be
no security lighting; and, he would be agreeable to talk or meet with the representatives
from Wild Bird Rescue.
Mr. Stephenson inquired about the interference with the veterinary clinic. Mr. Ray
explained that any equipment that emits a signal falls under the guidelines of FCC.
Most of the interferences can be the result of loose fittings or coaxial deterioration [on
the equipment being used] over time. EMF and RF is floating around the atmosphere
everywhere. A shielded system is an FCC mandate. The veterinary clinic should not
have a problem. He further commented that he had located cell sites on the roofs of
hospitals.
Mr. Stephenson asked about the flyways and wetlands. Mr. Ray replied the site is 1.5
miles from the parking for Lake Wichita.
Mr. Kidwell asked exactly where the tower would be located on the tract. Mr. Ray
showed the location with the cemetery to the right and Popeye's 100 yards to the right.
To questioning Mr. Ray replied, that exact location was selected because the property
owner wishes to have the ability to develop other portions of this tract.
Ms. Karen Young, owner of the veterinary clinic, showed the properties she owns on
the map. Her concerns were:
1) The possible radiation that could be emitted from the monopole;
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 5 MAY 13, 2009
2) Long -term steochastic health effects that could affect the population (i.e.
abnormal EEG, fatigue, brain hemorrhage, cancer increase, pacemaker
disruption, memory loss; DNA changes);
3) The effect on machines and monitoring equipment regarding X -rays,
sonograms, cardiac monitoring, and anesthesia monitoring;
4) The possibility of an equipment malfunction during surgery of a pet
because of an interruption due to the tower's radio frequency level
malfunction;
5) The daily flyway which travels over the Clinic and includes pelicans,
Canadian geese, and other species.
Mr. Taylor asked, if these towers emit this type of radiation, how could a hospital
construct a tower on its roof. Ms. Young replied that hospitals have lead or steel
linings; her building is not equipped with that type of protection. She noted that she
researched what might protect her building and found that it was iron cast walls which
would be cost prohibitive.
To questioning, Ms. Young responded that none of the animal clinics she knew of were
located near towers except one and its distance to the clinic was farther than what was
being proposed at this meeting: She also stated she was unaware if any medical
facilities were having problems with area towers.
Mr. Ray stated he was FCC licensed in a business trade area to install towers for
networking requirements. There is no restriction to the number of towers that can be
constructed in a city. He also stated that the normal course of business is to acquire
the land then obtain the permits (FCC, NEPA, and SHPO which are federal regulatory
agencies) prior to construction of the tower.
Mr. Hegglund stated he wanted to clarify some issues from the City's point of view: He
commented that different government entities regulate different issues regarding cell
towers. The federal government via its different agencies regulates the different
frequencies and footprints of migratory birds. This Commission is reviewing land use
compatibility and, if this Commission rejects the tower, it will need to be a valid and
good reason as well as be noted orally and in writing. The birds, the wildlife issues, and
the frequencies are regulated by the federal government.
Chairman Tate stated the vote would be to allow or disallow conditional use approval to
construct a monopole tower at the stated location.
Mr. Nelson stated he believed that this is a bad location for the cell tower. There is
sufficient opposition and reasons have been stated factually why the tower should not
be located on that tract. He further commented that Mr. Hegglund is saying it is not
within this Commission's purview to deny this request. The members must decide
whether the zoning is appropriate and if conditions should be placed on the approval.
Councilor Elmore stated that you [the Commission members] most certainly can come
to a decision about what is right and what is wrong for this City.
Mr. Taylor stated he felt the same way Mr. Nelson does plus if the tower might
endanger the wildlife and affect a 20+ year old business that should also be
considered. He stated he was confused about his role.
Mr. Odom commented that the data presented relating to scientific findings should not
be a consideration for the decision made today.
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 6 MAY 13, 2009
Ms. Young asked if it was correct that towers were not allowed in General Commercial
zoning unless they had conditional use approval. Mr. Odom replied it is a permitted use
and this process allows conditions to be placed on that approval process. It can be
denied but the reason has to be viable. Ms. Young stated those reasons could be
compatibility issues where it might endanger others, cause problems, decrease land
value, and safety and health issues. Mr. Odom stated, if the minimum requirements are
met, the conditional use permit can be granted. Ms. Young stated the setback
requirements have not been met. Mr. Odom explained that the ordinance states, if
engineering data is provided that the fall characteristics are within the existing setbacks,
a permit can be granted. The applicant has submitted the engineering report. Ms.
Young asked what recourse the City has if the tower falls outside those dimensions.
Chairman Tate stated this was an issue for the Legal Dept.
Mr. Nelson stated again that he believed the tower was incompatible in the area where
it is proposed to be constructed. Mr. Hegglund stated he will need to have a reason
why it is incompatible verbally and in writing. He asked the Commission to keep in mind
the federal government governs electromagnetic fields and governs flight paths of wild
fowl.
Mr. Nelson reminded Mr. Hegglund that there is significant neighborhood opposition for
that area of town. There are many precedence on previous P &Z cases where they
were denied because of significant [neighborhood] opposition. Mr. Hegglund stated
that one of the main differences is the federal government has regulations that deal with
cell towers. If a city or municipality denies a tower, there must be special evidence. Mr.
Hegglund mentioned there is a difference between federal law relating to denying a cell
tower versus denying a carport.
Mr. Stephenson commented that he felt this body should be able to approve this tower
based on the judgment of this body. Then if a higher ranking approving agency [federal
government] denies their application, it is denied.
Mr. Odom stated there are the normal conditional uses, then there are some situations
where there should not be conditional uses. If a tower meets the minimum critera, it
should be allowed. It puts the Commission in a difficult situation.
Mr. Clark stated that if the Commission feels a tower is an incompatible use that would
be a valid determination. Either party has the right to appeal to City Council if the
decision is not to their liking. If the members feel it is not compatible, then the reason
must be stated.
Chairman Tate acknowledged that all communication towers within the City are
reviewed. Some have been passed without any problems, some have been reviewed
for several meetings with the same negative reasons mentioned at this meeting. He
further commented that he has failed to see a decline in property values, an abundance
of dead birds, or evidence of problems relating to radiation. The medical and scientific
aspect of this tower is out of the realm of the conditional use process.
Mr. Nelson indicated that there are other locations in that area of Wichita Falls where a
tower could be located without neighborhood opposition.
Mr. Miles Risley, City Attorney, stated it is important to know and let the audience know
under FCC regulations no state or local government can regulate personal wireless
service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of RF emissions. It simply
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 7 MAY 13, 2009
cannot be considered; it is prohibited by federal law. If the Commission is going to deny
any request, it must be done on substantial evidence stated and contained in the
written record. Substantial evidence is a statement in federal law and has to be more
than "we don't like the tower there ".
Councilor Elmore suggested the review of this ordinance was needed and possibly
remove it from the conditional use process. He continued by stating that perhaps it was
completely beyond the purview of this Commission and may be beyond the purview of
the City Council as well. Mr. Nelson acknowledged that the Commission is being legally
forced to vote "yes ". Councilor Elmore recognized that fact and continued by stating
that this situation upsets him. Mr. Taylor agreed with Councilor Elmore.
Mr. Risley reported that the Commission could consider setbacks, aesthetics, and the
compatibility with the surroundings as long as the Commission members' relationship
was not based, in any fashion, on the RF emission issues presented today. Mr. Taylor
then asked why these Issues were brought before the Commission.
Councilor Elmore expressed concern
which to him seems more like magic.
concern and it can be considered.
engineering report has determined it
stated that, within 150' from the tower,
be a problem.
for a 150' tower that could possibly fall in 57',
Mr. Risley reported that fall space is a legitimate
Mr. Nelson reminded the Commission that the
will fall in those dimensions. Chairman Tate
it could hit a fence and gravestones which could
Mr. Ray stated there are plenty of towers in shopping centers and dense areas. He
noted that an engineer licensed by the State of Texas submitted the engineering report.
Councilor Elmore asked, if the Commission denied this case for the wrong reason, what
would be the consequences. Mr. Risley explained that, if a decision is based on the
wrong bases or the bases are not stated in writing, then there would be a basis to go to
federal district court and appeal the decision.
Mr. Ray stated that regarding the previous comments, he had done research on other
areas for location of this tower.
Councilor Elmore stated that the last thing anyone wants to do is to curtail or limit any
business venture in Wichita Falls. We are hopefully business oriented and friendly. He
further stated that he does not want to do anything that will create an obstruction toward
any business whether it's the tower, the veterinary clinic, or development to take place
on the property.
Ms. Young stated she understood the legal procedure. She expressed concerns for a
possible situation that might cause the tower to collapse.
Chairman Tate summarized by stating that Wichita Falls is pro business and the
members want to support it to the best of their abilities. He told Ms. Young that he
wants her business to continue and does not want to see problems for her or her
patients.
Mr. Nelson asked if there were a fall problem concerning the cemetery. Mr. Odom
stated that the ordinance states the setback is the height of the tower unless
engineering documentation can be provided that, in a catastrophic event, the tower will
be contained on the subject property. He restated that there is engineering
documentation in the file stating so. Mr. Nelson asks if buildings are built after the
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 8 MAY 13, 2009
tower is constructed what happens. Mr. Odom stated if they build within 57' or 58' it will
be the property owners' responsibility. Mr. Nelson stated this tower is not in a good
location and he is legally being forced to approve it.
Mr. Stephenson said he felt it was an infringement on the non - federal government, the
municipality. Mr. Nelson commented that it is like the judge telling the jury to disregard
a statement.
Mr. Ray stated this tower meets the requirements of a 90 mph wind load with '/2' ice.
Mr. Stephenson made a motion to approve this request. Mr. Ash seconded. This tower
was approved with a unanimous vote in favor. This project was approved subject to the
following developmental requirements:
1. Favorable responses from representatives of Sheppard Air Force Base
and the Wichita Falls Municipal Airport indicting that the proposal will not
interfere with their operation.
2. Proper documentation indicating fee - simple title or leasehold of the
property.
3. Proper documentation showing an FAA finding that the tower will not be a
hazard to airport operations (if required).
4. All applicable building codes including wind load requirements must be
met. The tower must be shown to meet a 90 mph wind load and 80 mph
wind load with .5 inch radial ice.
3. Case C 09 -16
Review for oil drilling on a vacant lot within a Residential Mixed Use district
(RMU)
2505 Iowa Park Road
Tommy Swanson Oil Co. presented a request for oil drilling activity on a 90.52 acre
tract of land located in a Residential Mixed Use zoning district west of Lucy Park.
The Zoning Ordinance lists oil drilling as a permitted use within RMU; however, the
Subdivision Ordinance requires that any proposed drilling activity be reviewed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission in the same manner as a conditional use request. A
final review by the City Council is also required. The results of these reviews include all
future drilling activity on this property by the applicant.
The following conditions have been recommended by staff and were approved by the
Commission:
1. All drilling mud shall be removed from the slush pits upon completion of the
drilling of the well.
2. The slush pits shall be bermed to an elevation above the 100 -year Floodplain
elevation and shall be constructed to prohibit stormwater from entering the
pits.
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 9 MAY 13, 2009
3. Stormwater control measures must be in place during the drilling and
completion process of the well to prohibit any stormwater contamination from
exiting the site.
Twenty -one (21) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Six (6)
responded in favor; one (1) responded opposed; and two (2) responded as undecided
or no opinion.
Mr. Tommy Swanson, 3260 Horseshoe Bend Estates, answered technical questions
regarding the drilling process from Commission members.
Mr. Clark stated this well was drilled without a permit, they were cited, and they plan to
drill additional wells.
Chairman Tate stated that he tried to find the site. He asked Mr. Swanson to address
the negative response that referred to the noise issue.
Mr. Swanson stated his crews tried to be as quiet as possible when drilling to avoid any
neighborhood disturbance. He also commented that his men washed the trucks and
tires prior to entering the roadways from the property to eliminate tracking track mud
onto the roadways.
Ms. Morrow asked why drilling occurred without a permit; Mr. Swanson stated he tried
to get a permit but had to wait for this process and City Council which was a full month.
He was being charged a daily rate for the rig whether it was used or not. He now plans
to drill several more wells on this property.
Mr. Gardner made a motion to approve this request; Mr. Ash seconded. The vote was
unanimous in favor of approval of drilling on that site.
4. Case C 09 -17
Conditional use approval to allow construction of a new parking lot on a
vacant lot
512 Fort Worth Street
Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church requested conditional use approval to construct a parking
lot on a vacant lot in Single Family -2. The church has little parking onsite and many
church members must park in the street in this residential area. Twenty -two (22)
property owners were notified of this request. Four (4) responded in favor; none (0)
responded opposed; and, one (1) responded as no opinion or undecided.
Mr. Martin Litteken of Cornerstone Engineering stated this is a situation where the
parishioners are parking on the street. They own the property across the street from
the Church and would like to make it into a parking lot.
Mr. Ash made a motion to approve this case. Mr. Stephenson seconded. The vote
was unanimous in favor of the parking lot.
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 10 MAY 13, 2009
5. Case C 09 -18
Conditional use approval to allow an adult entertainment use to re-
establish in a General Commercial district
405 A North Scott Street
Messrs. Nick Makrides and Davis Brooks requested conditional use approval to allow
an adult entertainment facility to re- establish on North Scott Street in a General
Commercial zone.
Adult entertainment is not permitted in the GC zone. There are three (3) buildings on
this lot that were established as adult entertainment uses prior to 1985 and were
considered to be legally nonconforming or "grandfathered ". One of the buildings
currently contains an adult entertainment facility; the other two buildings are vacant. A
nonconforming use loses it grandfathering determination if it has ceased operations for
two years or more. City records indicate the last adult entertainment use in this building
ceased operation around 1996. The Zoning Ordinance allows for continuing the
operation of a nonconforming use if approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission
through the conditional use process.
Although this type of use may be considered less desirable because of potential
secondary effects, the North Scott location has historically been used for adult
entertainment.
Nine (9) surrounding property owners were notified of this proposal. Three (3)
responded as opposed.
Mr. David Brooks, co- owner, stated that the plan is to expand the existing business by
using one of the buildings on the same lot. If this permit is granted, an additional 15 —
20 jobs will be created and there will be one less empty building on Scott Street. The
business has been removed from SAFB's black list which was inherited from a previous
owner. The new owners are in good standing with the law enforcement and TABC. He
asked the Commission to consider this application.
Mr. Brooks replied to questioning with the following answers: There is a large woven
chain link fence on the back of the property; the hours of operation begin in the evening
with the building unmanned during the day; there is one building with one business
currently operating [Texas Show Girls]; the current business has been open for one
year; the new facility will be a similar -type establishment; and, the entire address was
on SAFB's black list but, with a year of new ownership, hard work, and perseverance,
the address has been cleared.
Mr. Trey Sralla, representing Eddie Hill's Fun Cycles, stated their only concern was the
proximity to the fencing. The current business is open in the evening when the cycle
business is closed. He noted there is a buffer zone between his property and the
currently operating business. The proposed business is located at the back of the
property within approximately eight (8) feet of the cycle shop. Under the previous
management of those businesses, there was an abundance of trash including drug
paraphernalia, beer bottles, etc. He noted there have not been problems since that
building [405 A] was empty; the debris problem occurs when the building is occupied
because the patrons drink prior to entering the facility.
Mr. Brooks stated that Mr. Sralla was referring to a problem that occurred with the
previous owner. He has hired a security guard at night and the lot is now lighted.
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 11 MAY 13, 2009
Mr. Larry Clapp, owner of ABC Redi -Mix, clarified that his property joins the back of this
business with the large tract of land that has a large block concrete fence with a
security fence on top. He explained the reason for constructing the fence was to
protect his sand - gravel products. Contamination was occurring by bottles being thrown
over the fence and nullifying hundreds to thousands of dollars of material. When the
night establishments were previously open, this was a real problem. The owners were
not at fault, it was the patrons, over whom they have no control. The regulations today,
compared to when the club was previously open, are stricter. He continued by
explaining that when he delivers concrete for State jobs, the raw materials are
inspected. He commented that he does not have a problem with the current
establishment but has concerns for the new business [opening at 405 A].
Mr. Nelson voiced his opinion that he is inclined to vote yes to let the establishment
open. If the trash and debris become a problem, then this Commission can review the
decision. Mr. Taylor stated the owners have a good record for their first year in
business.
Mr. Brooks offered, as a suggestion, to install a mesh net; he stated they wanted to
work with the neighbors and did not want trash thrown on others' property causing
damage. Chairman Tate asked if a condition were placed on the approval that if there
were debris or problems from this night establishment, the conditional use permit could
be revoked, would it be sufficient to keep the opposing neighbors satisfied.
Mr. Sralla stated that he would like to see the condition placed on the permit and he
expressed that, only when actual problems occur to his store, would he report incidents.
Mr. Brooks stated that currently this building is not lighted. There are lights surrounding
the property on poles and, on the building, there are flood lights illuminating the parking
areas. If given permission to proceed, security cameras will be installed. He stated he
is doing everything possible for the area to be safe and clean.
CONDITION:
Mr. Nelson made a motion to amend the original motion placing a condition on the
approval of this permit that if there is sufficient debris being thrown on to neighboring
properties to warrant complaints, by the owners of those properties to the City of
Wichita Falls, this conditional use permit will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission with the possibility of further restrictions being placed on the permit. Mr.
Kidwell seconded. The condition was approved with a unanimous vote in favor.
ORIGINAL MOTION:
Mr. Kidwell made a motion to approve this case; Mr. Stephenson seconded. The
original motion was approved with a unanimous vote in favor.
6. Case C 09 -20
Conditional use approval to allow construction of a duplex on a vacant lot
1233 32nd Street
Mr. Ralph Garza requested conditional use approval to construct a duplex on a lot in a
Single Family -2. The applicant is also seeking a variance from the Zoning Board of
Adjustment to reduce the exterior side setback from 15' to 11.2'.
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 12 MAY 13, 2009
Twenty -six (26) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One (1)
responded in favor and none (0) were opposed.
Mr. Charles Barr, representing the applicant, stated this duplex would make a nice
addition to neighborhood. Chairman Tate agreed that new construction on that block
and street would be good. Mr. Taylor commented that it would certainly be an asset.
Mr. Gardner made a motion to approve this request; Ms. Morrow seconded. The
duplex was approved with a unanimous vote in favor.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
1. City Council Update
Mr. Clark reported that the wind turbine ordinance was changed to make it a conditional
use, a minimum distance from the ground to the bottom of the blades was added then it
was approved by City Council.
Mr. Clark stated there was discussion regarding the closure of business hours in the
downtown area. This item will return to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review
and approval with the addition of some exceptions to the closure hours. Councilor
Elmore reported that the business owners and bar owners in the downtown area are
supporters of this ordinance. They are interested in having 24 hour retail
establishments locating downtown. The feeling is not to limit any business.
Mr. Nelson stated the comment regarding restricting businesses downtown became the
focal point of the discussion but it was not the focal point of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Their focal point was the enforcement tools and existing ordinances
already in place to deal with the issue. The feeling from the members was that better
enforcement of the existing ordinances was needed instead of more ordinances or
regulations.
TRAFFIC CONCERNS:
Mr. Nelson reported that the left turn lane (traveling north on Kemp turning left onto Call
Field) has been expanded over the years to handle the increased traffic, which
sometimes had to wait on four or five lights. A similar situation is evolving north on Taft
at the intersection of Midwestern Parkway due to the increased number of students
living on Southwest Parkway and the south end of Taft. As many as 20 or 30 cars have
been backed up trying to make the left turn.
OTHER BUSINESS NOT ON THE AGENDA- FENCING /OUTDOOR STORAGE
Mr. Stan Thomas, 4187 Airport Drive, stated he has "Other Business" to discuss with
the Commission members. He reported that he was a lightning rod for people who are
unhappy with the City because he is one of the few that will stand up. He claimed his
issue was fencing and he noticed it has not come back [to the Planning and Zoning
Commission]. He stated that his ticket was dismissed. Chairman Tate tried to explain
to Mr. Thomas that the Commission could not entertain a topic not listed on the agenda.
Mr. Thomas replied that he did not want to specifically discuss the fencing ordinance
P & Z COMMISSION
PAGE 13
MAY 13, 2009
but instead wanted to talk about the power this Commission has. Chairman Tate
reiterated that the proper channels must be followed according to the State of Texas'
Attorney General. Mr. Thomas declared he that was not trying to talk about something
specific instead the power this board has and giving the City more authority in any area.
Chairman Tate stated this subject was not on the agenda this month. Mr. Clark
suggested Mr. Thomas visit with City Council regarding this matter. Mr. Thomas stated
he wanted to talk to this board [about this matter]. Chairman Tate once again declared
that Mr. Thomas needed to have the topic he wished to discuss placed on the agenda
with staffs assistance.
VI. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:23 p.m.
Ri ey T-4te, Chairman
ATTEST:
David A. Clark, Director of Community Development
nG - //0-�r
Date
J1 / )[)�
at
--ffE—CE1—VED IN
1
CITY CLf RK'S OFFICE
Da
f
:' � Time iL