Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 01/10/2024 MINUTES 49410 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 10, 2024 PRESENT: David Cook •Chairman Brady Enlow •Alternate No.1 Blake Haney •Member Michael Grassi •Member Doug McCulloch •Member Wayne Pharries •Member Alan Sizemore •Alternate No.2 Jeremy Woodward •Vice-Chair Councilor Bobby Whiteley •Council Liaison Councilor Mike Battaglino •Council Liaison Monica Aguon, Legal Department •City Staff Paul Menzies, Assistant City Manager •City Staff Russell Schreiber, Director of Public Works •City Staff Terry Floyd, Development Services Director •City Staff Fabian Medellin, Planning Manager •City Staff Christal Cates, Neighborhood Revitalization Coordinator •City Staff Cedric Hu, Planning Technician •City Staff ABSENT: Mark McBurnett •SAFB Liaison Matt Marrs •Member Noros Martin •Member Steve Wood •Member I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Mr. David Cook, at 2:00 p.m. Chairman Cook proceeded to make the following comments: III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Cook asked if there were any comments from the public. With no response, Mr. Cook closed public comments. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice-Chairman, Mr. Jeremy Woodward, made a motion to adopt the December 13, 2023, minutes. Mr. Wayne Pharries seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously, 8-0 VII. REGULAR AGENDA Planning and Zoning 2 January 10, 2024 1. Case C 24-01 — 1514 Britain Street: Consider taking action on a conditional use at 1514 Britain Street to allow for a duplex in a Single Family-2 (SF-2) zoning district. Mr. Woodward made a motion to approve the case. Mr. Michael Grassi seconded the motion. Mr. Cedric Hu presented the case and stated the owner and applicant, Mr. Scottie Smith of Phoenician Development Group, met with staff regarding the development of a duplex in a residential area. Currently, the City ordinance does require a conditional use approval for development of a duplex in a Single Family-2 (SF-2) zoning district. Mr. Hu stated the subject property, at 1514 Britain Street, was located in central Wichita Falls, three blocks northeast of Wichita Falls High. The property is currently vacant and surrounded by other residential structures with residential uses. Mr. Hu stated the applicant's site plan shows a structure that would be a total of 2,236sf., placed 26ft. from the front property line, 62ft. from the rear and 11ft. from the north, side interior and 18ft. from side exterior, adhering to all setback requirements. The subject property is located in the Single Family-2 (SF-2) zoning district, surrounded by other residential properties. Located to the southeast, a block away is a small area of Limited Commercial (LC) zoning along Harrison Street with residential uses. Mr. Hu advised staff sent notices to 36 surrounding property owners located within 200ft of the subject property and received no responses. With all potential impacts taken into consideration, staff recommends the approval of the proposed duplex at 1514 Britain Street subject to the following conditions: 1. A total of 4 parking stalls be provided meeting the design standards of Section 6200 — Off Street Parking Regulations. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the property must be platted. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable building code regulations, permitting, and inspections. Chairman Cook asked if the applicant was present and wished to make a presentation. The applicant was not present. Mr. Cook asked if there were any comments from the public. With no comments, Mr. Cook asked the Commission if they had any comments or questions. Chairman Cook called for a vote. The proposal passed unanimously with a vote of 8-0. 2. Case C 24-02— 1614 Polk Street: Consider taking action on a conditional use at 1614 Polk Street to allow for a duplex in a Single Family-2 (SF-2) zoning district. Planning and Zoning 3 January 10, 2024 Vice-Chairman Woodward made a motion to approve the case. Mr. Pharries seconded the motion. Mr. Hu presented the case and stated the owner and applicant, was the same as the previous case with an identical site plan. Mr. Hu stated the subject property, at 1614 Polk Street, was located in central Wichita Falls, across the street, north of Zundy Elementary. The property is currently vacant and surrounded by other residential structures with residential uses. Mr. Hu stated the applicant's site plan showed each unit having 3 bedrooms and 2 baths. The structure would be a total of 2,236sf., placed 26ft. from the front property line, 36ft. from the rear and 5ft. from the side interior and 17ft. on the side exterior along Avenue G. The subject property is in the Single Family-2 (SF-2) zoning district. Located two blocks west is the Commercial Corridor (CC) zoning district that runs along Kemp Boulevard with various different uses. Mr. Hu advised staff sent notices to 20 surrounding property owners located within 200ft of the subject property and received one response opposed. Mr. Hu noted that there was one other duplex located within the 200ft. notification area. Staff recommended the approval of the proposed duplex at 1614 Polk Street subject to the following conditions: 1. A total of 4 parking stalls be provided meeting the design standards of Section 6200 — Off Street Parking Regulations. 2. The conversion shall comply with all applicable building code regulations, permitting, and inspections. Chairman Cook asked if the applicant was present and wished to make a presentation. The applicant was not present. Mr. Cook asked if there were any comments from the public. With no comments, Mr. Cook asked the Commission if they had any comments or questions. Chairman Cook called for a vote. The proposal passed unanimously with a vote of 8-0. 3. Case C 24-03 1800 Fillmore Street: Consider taking action on a conditional use at 1800 Fillmore Street to allow for a duplex in a Single Family-2 (SF-2) zoning district. Vice-Chairman Woodward made a motion to approve the case. Mr. Pharries seconded the motion. Mr. Hu presented the case and stated the owner and applicant, was the same as the previous cases and the final for the owner and applicant, Mr. Scottie Smith of Phoenician Development Group. Mr. Hu stated the subject property, at 1800 Fillmore Street, was located in central Wichita Falls, southwest of Zundy Elementary. The property is currently vacant and surrounded by other residential structures with residential uses. ............ Planning and Zoning 4 January 10, 2024 Mr. Hu stated the applicant's site plan showed each unit having 3 bedrooms and 2 baths. The structure would be a total of 2,236sf., placed 26ft. from the front property line, 36ft. from the rear and 5ft. from the side interior on the south and 17ft. on the side exterior to the north. The subject property is in the Single Family-2 (SF-2) zoning district. Located to the west, adjacent to the Commercial Corridor (CC) zoning district that runs along Kemp Boulevard with various different uses. Mr. Hu advised staff sent notices to 21 surrounding property owners located within 200ft of the subject property and received no responses. Mr. Hu noted that there were two other duplexes located within the 200ft. notification area and one four- plex. Staff recommended the approval of the proposed duplex at 1800 Fillmore Street subject to the following conditions: 1. A total of 4 parking stalls be provided meeting the design standards of Section 6200 — Off Street Parking Regulations. 2. The conversion shall comply with all applicable building code regulations, permitting, and inspections. Chairman Cook asked if the applicant was present and wished to make a presentation. The applicant was not present. Mr. Cook asked if there were any comments from the public. With no comments, Mr. Cook asked the Commission if they had any comments or questions. Chairman Cook called for a vote. The proposal passed unanimously with a vote of 8-0. 4. Case C 24-04— 2801 Colquit Street: Consider taking action on a conditional use at 2801 Colquit Street to allow for a duplex in a Single Family-2 (SF-2) zoning district. Vice-Chairman Woodward made a motion to approve the case. Mr. Pharries seconded the motion. Mr. Hu presented the case and stated the owner and applicant, had previously met with staff regarding the development of a duplex on the subject property. Mr. Hu stated the subject property, at 2801 Colquit Street was located in central Wichita Falls, north of the Kell Boulevard and Lawrence Road intersection. The property is currently vacant and surrounded by other residential structures with residential uses. Mr. Hu stated the applicant's site plan showed each unit having two separate garages and drive-ways. The structure would be a total of 3,600sf., with the front setback at 25ft. from the front property line, 5ft. from the rear and 5ft. from the side interior on the south and 15ft. on the side exterior to the north. Planning and Zoning 5 January 10, 2024 The subject property is in the Single Family-2 (SF-2) zoning district and is surrounded by other residential uses. Mr. Hu advised staff sent notices to 22 surrounding property owners located within 200ft of the subject property and received one response in favor, one response in opposition and one response as undecided. Staff recommended the approval of the proposed duplex at 2801 Colquit Road subject to the following conditions: 1. Parking for each lot be provided meeting the design standards of Section 6200 — Off Street Parking Regulations. 2. The conversion shall comply with all applicable building code regulations, permitting, and inspections. Chairman Cook asked if the applicant was present and wished to make a presentation. The applicant was not present. Mr. Cook asked if there were any comments from the public. With no comments, Mr. Cook asked the Commission if they had any comments or questions. Chairman Cook called for a vote. The proposal passed unanimously with a vote of 8-0. 5. Case C 24-05 — 1900 Grant Street: Consider taking action on a conditional use at 1900 Grant Avenue to allow for a duplex in a Single Family-2 (SF-2) zoning district. Vice-Chairman Woodward made a motion to approve the case. Mr. Pharries seconded the motion. Mr. Fabian Medellin presented the case and stated the case being presented would be slightly different than a normal duplex development proposal. The property owner, Mr. Erik Scott, had previously demolished a secondary living structure that had deteriorated beyond repair with the intention of rebuilding it. The owner was unaware that the structure was a legal non-conforming structure and that city ordinances would not allow the rebuilding without first seeking approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff met with Mr. Scott who prepared and application and site plan to request the rebuild of a secondary living structure. The subject property is located at 1900 Grant Street at the corner of Avenue I and Grant Street, south of the West Floral Heights Historic District. The proposed site plan Mr. Scott presented shows a 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom layout for the duplex addition to the existing single-family residence. Mr. Medellin stated staff worked with Mr. Scott to ensure all setback requirements would be met according to city ordinances. Mr. Medellin advised the subject property was located in the Single Family-2 (SF-2) zoning district surrounded by residential uses. To the south is a small pocket zoned Limited Commercial (LC) containing primarily residential uses. Planning and Zoning 6 January 10, 2024 Mr. Medellin stated staff notified 25 property owners within 200ft. of the subject property and received 2 responses, both in favor of this proposal. Staff recommends approval of this request to allow for a duplex at 1900 Grant Street with the conditions outlined below; 1. The property be subject to platting requirements prior to construction permit issuance. 2. The applicant must provide and maintain adequate parking for the development. 3. The structures shall comply with all applicable zoning/ building code regulations, permitting, and inspections. Chairman Cook asked if the applicant was present and wished to make a presentation. Mr. Scott was present but gave no presentation. Mr. Cook asked if there were any comments from the public. Mr. Doug McCulloch asked about the carport and garage shown on the site plan. Mr. Medellin clarified those structures are existing structures. With no comments, Mr. Cook asked the Commission if they had any comments or questions. Chairman Cook called for a vote. The proposal passed unanimously with a vote of 8-0. 6. Case TA 23-01 — Update to Subdivision and Development Regulations: Consider a recommendation to amend the City Code of Ordinances, Appendix A— Subdivision and Development Regulations, to amend platting requirements and formally adopt a Pavement Design Manual to comply -140 with regulations as set forth in Texas House Bill 3699. Mr. Terry Floyd presented the case and stated this was a proposal for a text amendment previously brought before the Commission during the December 10, 2023, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Floyd stated the reason for presentation was to request a favorable recommendation to the City Council at their next meeting on Tuesday, January 16th, 2024. The reason for the text amendment was to bring the City of Wichita Falls into compliance with House Bill No. 3699 passed by State Legislation in 2023. Mr. Floyd provided an update and advised City staff heard the Commissioner voice concern about not having approvals from the City Council to the Pavement Design and Stormwater Design manuals. The proposal now contained verbiage that require approvals from the City Council and not just City Staff as originally proposed in December of 2023. Mr. Floyd reiterated that the amendments did not add any additional requirements to the current platting process and that is was only to achieve compliance with HB 3699. Mr. Floyd gave the following information on the background of HB 3699: • Clarifies 30-day plat approval "shot clock" requirements. • Requires adoption of a Pavement Design Manual that was and is available to the public via the City website. ram'-y- Planning and Zoning 7 January 10, 2024 • Cities may not require analyses, studies, documents, agreements as part of a plat application. • Multiple extensions can be requested by the applicant Mr. Floyd provided the proposed subdivision amendments: • Infrastructure (water, sewer, drainage) improvements must have approved plans, accepted installation or surety in place prior to plat application being filed with the City. • Adoption of a Pavement Design Manual. The adoption would not change any current pavement design standards, rather it would collect all the standards into one document as required by HB 3699. • Reiterates adoption of 2011 Stormwater Drainage Manual • Minor text changes to correct Director of Comm. Dev. title • No changes to current Planning Commission plat approval process Mr. Floyd advised the Commission that staff recommended the Planning Commission favorably recommend to City Council the proposed Subdivision Regulations amendments for Council consideration at the January 16th meeting. Mr. Floyd stated he appreciated the Commission members that reached out to him and emailed questions and concerns and the staff that was able to work through those issues. Chairman Cook asked if there was anyone from the public that wished to comment on the amendment proposal. Mr. Tanner Wachsman, 5689 Blackstone Drive, stated he came before the Commission during the December 13th. 2023, meeting and apologized as presenting and speaking before a Board is not something he does on a regular basis. Mr. Wachsman gave a brief history of previous amendments from around 2018 and stated he had met with other developers and members of the public and had a list of amendments he would like to see the Commission recommend to the City Council on January 16th, 2023, that he believes would be beneficial, along with staff proposed amendments and subsequent design manuals. Mr. Wachsman stated he would like for the Commission to take a second look at §14 — Modification of Subdivision Regulations, particularly the exact requirements for an applicant to propose modifications to the subdivision and/or development regulations in order to get a variance or approval for an alternative design to be acceptable in place of what is currently required. Mr. Wachsman stated it was his and many others opinion that this section was written too stringently to allow for any real consideration of what would be allowed as alternative methods to achieve compliance. Furthermore, Mr. Wachsman stated often, alternative methods could not even be discussed publicly unless they meet all specified requirements to have a proposal brought before the Commission for consideration. Mr. Wachsman stated he didn't think the instances where a modification is needed are many, but when they are needed, there is not a smooth path for an to seek approval for an alternative method of compliance. Planning and Zoning 8 January 10, 2024 Mr. Wachsman advised to allow for greater economic prosperity in the development of Wichita Falls, the Commission and/or City Council should look at ways to develop inside city limits by creating an easier path to apply for a variance to the subdivision and development regulations. Mr. Wachsman stated he was not sure how the Commission would like to proceed with his recommendations; however, he had copies for Commission members and would also be willing to read through the verbiage of his recommendations for a possible vote to favorably recommend to the City Council at the January 16th meeting. Chairman Cook asked, with the recommendations Mr. Wachsman was proposing and the widespread effect they would have, if he had given and/or discussed those modifications to City staff and/or had any kind of meeting in the past month. Mr. Wachsman advised he had not, that he had only had private discussions with non- city staff on his proposed modifications. Mr. Cook stated looking at the possible effects on such a large mass of individuals he would not feel comfortable voting on those recommendations at that time. However, Mr. Cook did believe the discussion should be held at a future time when staff could be given the proposed modifications as well as the Commission with time to study and review them and asked for Mr. Floyd to comment on the subject. Mr. Floyd stated today staffs only recommendation was the modification presented to bring the City into compliance with the State. Chairman Cook stated in light of what Mr. Wachsman had presented he wanted to hear from the Commission regarding the possibility of having a meeting to discuss in detail those proposed modifications. Mr. Michael Grassi stated it was his understanding at the conclusion of last month's meeting that there was to be a separate meeting with the Stakeholders and Commission members to discuss the amendments staff had proposed and asked if any sort of meeting was held. Mr. Wachsman stated he had no contact or had mention of a meeting held that he was aware of. Mr. Grassi stated with modifications from previous years several meetings were held to review those proposals. Mr. Wachsman stated his modifications mainly only had to do with the path to bring a proposed modification before the board. He believes rather than bring those before another Commission or Stakeholder meeting, he could save the City money and many man-hours by considering his proposed modifications at that time rather than a string of meetings later. Mr. McCulloch asked for clarification on how Mr. Wachsman was proposing to save money and time. Mr. Wachsman responded by saying he believed it was in the Commission's authority to have his proposed modifications favorably recommended to City Council at the January 16th meeting rather than postponing discussions to future meeting dates. Further discussion among Mr. Wachsman and the Commission on the practicality of recommending the modifications versus having future meetings. Mr. Russell Schreiber advised the Commission he was present for the previous subdivision modifications that were indeed very in-depth. Mr. Schreiber advised Mr. Planning and Zoning 9 January 10, 2024 Wachsman's modification be taken into consideration at a future meeting date when they could be reviewed by all parties. He stated at this time the most important thing was to get a recommendation for City Council so that the City could be in compliance with the State. Mr. Schreiber further advised the Commission that no changes to the plat approval process was taking place, that process is the same the City has been following since 2018. There was further discussion among the Commission, staff and Mr. Wachsman about his proposed modifications, adding a meeting time-frame and verbiage on a potential motion. Chairman Cook asked if there were any additional comments from the public. Mr. Cook closed the public comments and asked if there were any additional comments or discussion from the Commission. Mr. McCulloch made a motion to favorably recommend the modifications as presented to the City Council with the stipulation of meetings to be held in the future with staff and stakeholders to review current and future modifications within 180 days from January 10th, 2024. More discussion between staff and Commission on deadlines, ramifications of being out of compliance with the State, and what happens if the motion on the floor is not seconded. Vice-Chairman Woodward seconded the motion which passed with a vote of 8-0. 7. Case M 24-01 — Subdivision Regulations Modification: Consider taking action on a modification request by Mr. Michael Grassi, under Section 3 14 of the City Code of Ordinances, Appendix A — Subdivision and Development Regulations to Section 3.3.4 Open Channels, Pilot Channels in the City's Stormwater Design Manual for Drainage Channel Improvements, Hill and Hill Heights, Section 3, Unit 7 and unpiatted northern tract, City of Wichita Falls, Wichita County, Texas. Chairman Cook stated for the record, that Mr. Grassi had filed the appropriate paperwork in the City Clerk's office to recuse himself from voting on the following proposal as he is the applicant, owner & developer for the subject property. *It is noted Mr. Grassi physically stepped down and sat in the audience. Any further participation6 from Mr. Grassi would be that of the applicant. Mr. Floyd presented the case and stated Mr. Grassi, developer of Classic Builders, was requesting a modification of the City subdivision regulations, specifically, stormwater design requirements of pilot channels for drainage channel improvements located on the unplatted subject property, Hill & Hill Heights, Section 3, Unit 7. Mr. Floyd presented location maps to the Commission showing the subject property that was a new subdivision located in the southwest area of Wichita Falls, west of Memorial Stadium. Planning and Zoning 10 January 10, 2024 Mr. Floyd advised the Commission this was not a proposal to amend the design standards and would only be applicable to this request and subject property location. The original developer for this subject property was Mr. Gary Broyles, before Mr. Grassi purchased and took over development of the subdivision including infrastructure. City ordinances state all public infrastructure is provided and paid for by the developer. Once all inspections are passed, the ownership is then turned over to the City to maintain. Mr. Floyd stated the original preliminary plat was approved in November 2016, with infrastructure approved by the City engineering department in 2021. Since that time, the development has been in various stages. The water and sewer were completed and accepted by City staff in October 2023 as well as the roads. The stormwater drainage being discussed is still pending as of this time. Mr. Floyd stated the developer and home builder had agreed to increase the size of some of the lots in the area that are adjacent to the drainage area not yet constructed, to accommodate larger backyards and adjacent lots. The proposed increase of the size of the lots has necessitated the adjusting of the drainage channel size and location. Mr. Grassi's engineer has submitted a set of plans for the new proposed drainage channel that will be required to meet the Stormwater Design Manual that calls for a concrete bottom. Mr. Floyd advised the new plans submitted by Mr. Grassi's engineer, not only meets, but exceeds the thresholds of the City's ordinance requiring a concrete bottom pilot channel. Mr. Grassi, as the developer, has not completed the pilot channels which require a concrete bottom and is requesting variance to that ordinance. For this variance, Mr. Grassi must prove to the Commission depravation of land use. Mr. Floyd advised the Commission their role per City ordinance § 14 — Modification of Subdivision Regulations reads as follows; A. Where existing conditions require a modification from the standards and regulations herein contained because of a distinct and unusual condition that does not prevail on other undeveloped land generally in the city, the Commission may approve a modification from specific standards to permit the equitable treatment of the land or tract in light of the unusual condition. B. The Commission may authorize a modification from these regulations when in its opinion deprivation of use of land will result from requiring strict compliance. The applicant shall have the responsibility of proving that the strict application of the subdivision ordinance creates a deprivation of use of land. The following conditions must be present for consideration. The City response will follow each in Italics. 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that the strict application of the provisions of this Planning and Zoning 11 January 10, 2024 chapter would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and, • The requirement of the installation of a pilot channel in the proposed drainage channel does not deprive the applicant the use of his land for the drainage channel in this instance and has been installed as required for a number of projects throughout the city. 2. The granting of the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area; and, • Flat, grass-lined channels allow silt to build up reducing the carrying capacity of the channel and do not dry out frequently enough to allow for routine maintenance to occur. • Creates a breeding ground for mosquitoes and other insects and would be considered having a detrimental effect on public health. 3. The granting of the modification will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other lands in the area in accordance with the provisions of this chapter; and, • The modification would not prevent the orderly subdivision of other lands based on the information provided by the applicant. 4. A more appropriate design solution exists which is not currently allowed in this chapter; and, • The newly proposed design submitted in October 2023 would be adequate and appropriate if the concrete pilot channel included as part of the design. 5. The granting of the modification is harmonious with the engineered design of the infrastructure of any neighboring subdivision. • The modification is not harmonious with other infrastructure as all other developers have been required to install the concrete (i.e. pilot) channel in accordance with Section 3.3.4 of the Stormwater Design Manual. C. The modification may be granted only when in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter so that the public health, safety, and welfare may be secured and substantial justice is done. Economic hardship to the applicant shall not be deemed to constitute a deprivation of use. The Commission may reach a conclusion that a deprivation exists if it finds that: 1. If the applicant complies strictly with the provisions of this chapter, the applicant can make no reasonable use of the property; and Planning and Zoning 12 January 10, 2024 • The applicant can use his property as a drainage channel. Compliance with Section 3.3.4 of the Stormwater Design Manual does not deprive the applicant of use of the land. 2. The deprivation of use relates to the applicant's land, rather than personal circumstances; and • The applicant is not deprived of the use of his land for a drainage channel based on the information provided. 3. The deprivation of use is unique to the property, rather than one shared by many surrounding properties; and • There is no deprivation of use of the property based on the information provided at this time. • The requirement for the concrete channel is not unique to this property as the Stormwater Design Manual has been in use since 2011. 4. The deprivation of use is not the result of the applicant's own actions or actions of a previous owner or owner's agent. • The proposed design as submitted in October 2023 would be adequate and appropriate if the concrete pilot channel were included as part of the design. Mr. Floyd turned the presentation over to Mr. Russell Schreiber, Director of Public Works. Mr. Schreiber gave more clarification on the plan sheet Mr. Grassi submitted in October 2023. The original approved plan set from Mr. Broyles had a drainage ditch behind the homes. Mr. Grassi wants to relocate the drainage ditch into the existing irrigation canal to allow for larger backyards and make the lots more appealing. City staff is amenable with the relocation of the drainage ditches; however, Mr. Grassi does not wish to place a concrete pilot channel in the bottom of the relocated channel. The existing channel is over the minimum slope required and a concrete pilot channel is not required; however, the relocated drainage facilities would require a concrete pilot channel due to the flat slopes. Mr. Schreiber advised the Commission of the City's Stormwater Design Manual, 3.3.4 Open Channels Open Channel Types - Pilot Channels - Man-made earthen channels with longitudinal slopes of less than 0.5% or that serve an area where consistent low flows are or may become prevalent shall be provided with a pilot channel per City Engineering standards. Planning and Zoning 13 January 10, 2024 Mr. Schreiber further explained to the Commission that would be .5% of slope is 6 inches of slope in 100 feet. When the channels are not lined with a concrete V pan, the flows cannot be carried away, they never dry up, and City staff cannot mow, creating a health hazard. Mr. Schreiber pointed out that fellow developer, Mr. Doug McCulloch has had properties like this and had adhere to the same requirements. For the modification request to be approved, Mr. Grassi would need to meet all 9 criteria under sections B and C. Based on the information provided by the applicant, deprivation of use of land has not been proven and all 9 conditions for consideration and granting of the variance have not been met. Staff recommends compliance with the City's stomiwater design standards as the request for a modification does not meet the standards set forth for such in the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Floyd noted that financial/economic hardship shall not be deemed deprivation of use. Chairman Cook stated for the record at the beginning of this case he was advised to make a statement that Mr. Grassi's membership on the Commission should not be considered in the evaluation. The repeated highlight that one of the Commission members is in compliance with the stormwater design guidelines should not be considered in the evaluation as well. Mr. Cook asked if there was any discussion. Mr. McCulloch asked if him being a developer and a member of the Commission was in some way a conflict on this case in response to Chairman Cook's statement. Ms. Aguon, attorney for the City, stated there was no monetary gain for Mr. McCulloch and he was not in conflict. Mr. McCulloch asked for a visual where the drainage channel was located, Mr. Schreiber displayed the location on the site plan. Mr. Grassi greeted the Commission and stated he had hand-outs to go along with his presentation to the Commission. Mr. Grassi gave a brief history of the property and advised the irrigation canal that had been around since the 1930's that sits on residential property he owns as well as property to the north owned by Mr. Broyles, which provides irrigation to surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Grassi advised it was earlier stated that when the property was being developed in November 2021, the plan set had this drainage channel on it and that information was incorrect. Mr. Grassi advised in the process of developing the property there was difficulty trying to pour concrete for the streets that face the lots due to the constant drainage. Mr. Grassi stated he and his team approached the public works department and stated there was an issue with water not draining and hindering further development. During that time, Mr. Grassi stated he and his staff determined there was an off-site water issued to the north causing water to drain onto this property, preventing it from drying out long enough to develop the residential streets. It became the opinion to cut the water off to the north and push it along the drainage ditch. Mr. Grassi advised the solution that was added to the plan set in 2022 does not take Planning and Zoning 14 January 10, 2024 care of the problem that is still present today. Mr. Grassi stated he has submitted to public works a plan drawn up by a private engineer of a channel that does not have a concrete bottom that parallels the existing drainage channel. The best solution would be to divert the water from the north to the other side, another ditch in itself. That discussion was taken before the Wichita County Water District No. 2 as that is their water easement. They stated they no longer sent water, or very little water down that channel and would the City be willing to accommodate some tailwaters that comes from someone to the west that fills their stock tanks. Mr. Grassi stated they would be willing to abandon and covey that easement to the City of Wichita Falls to utilize the ditch that is there and fix the drainage problem. Mr. Grassi stated he is bound by the irrigation canal running through the property along with water coming in from the north and this a unique issue not normally found when developing subdivisions. Mr. Grassi states his handouts show the acceptable slopes in other cities in Texas. Mr. Grassi continues to discuss slopes and other designs to mitigate water flow. Mr. Grassi talked briefly about vegetative linings and quoted from the stormwater design manual that vegetation, where practical, is the most desirable lining for an artificial channel. It stabilizes the channel body, consolidates the soil mass of the bed, checks erosion on the channel surface, provides habitat, and provides water quality benefits. Mr. Grassi stated concrete channels were not the one and only solution to these channels. Mr. Grassi stated he believed he met all qualifications to bring this before the Commission and had the following responses to the criteria for section B: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that the strict application of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and, • Mr. Grassi stated the irrigation canal was in itself a unique and special circumstance. 2. The granting of the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area; and, • Mr. Grassi stated the granting of this modification will not be detrimental to public health, as the standing water issue already exists and the new design will alleviate that issue. 3. The granting of the modification will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other lands in the area in accordance with the provisions of this chapter; and, Planning and Zoning 15 January 10, 2024 • Mr. Grassi stated the granting of this modification will actually promote development of future subdivisions by rectifying the water issue. 4. A more appropriate design solution exists which is not currently allowed in this chapter; and, • Nothing specifically noted for this. 5. The granting of the modification is harmonious with the engineered design of the infrastructure of any neighboring subdivision. • Mr. Grassi stated the modification is harmonious with the neighborhood as there are other ditches like that throughout the neighborhood. Criteria for section C and Mr. Grassi's responses: 1. If the applicant complies strictly with the provisions of this chapter, the applicant can make no reasonable use of the property; and • Mr. Grassi believes without the modification the land will continue to flood and will not be able to be inhabited. 2. The deprivation of use relates to the applicant's land, rather than personal circumstances; and • The deprivation is due to the water shed to the north and has nothing personal in relation. 3. The deprivation of use is unique to the property, rather than one shared by many surrounding properties; and • Mr. Grassi stated the irrigation canal running through the property makes it unique and the water standing issue is shared by surrounding properties. 4. The deprivation of use is not the result of the applicant's own actions or actions of a previous owner or owner's agent. • Mr. Grassi stated the deprivation in not a result of his actions, rather has been an on-going issue. Mr. Floyd asked who owned the irrigation canal. Chairman Cook clarified with Mr. Grassi the water standing was coming from property to the north that Mr. Grassi did not own. Mr. Grassi stated that was correct. Chairman Cook asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Grassi. With no response, Mr. Cook asked if there were any comments from the public. No public comments were made. Chairman Cook closed the discussion to the public and opened to the Commission. Mr. McCulloch advised the Commission that land in Wichita Falls was very flat and hard to move water, and often, developers, inherit issues such as. This was not rare, and he frequently has had to deal with these Planning and Zoning 16 January 10, 2024 situations as well. Mr. McCulloch stated he had concerns on the maintenance of these if there was no concrete bottom and how they would be able to get mowing equipment out there to mow. Mr. McCulloch states he believes a concrete bottom channel is the best way to move water and does not believe the v-shaped channel Mr. Grassi is proposing will work. He stated the concrete channel will be the quickest, most effective way to handle the water flow. Chairman Cook asked if there were any other comments. Mr. Medellin stated a surety had been put up when the plat went before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Some of the homes Mr. Grassi has already completed even have certificates of occupancy; therefore, that in of itself shows there is no deprivation of the property. Mr. Medellin advised the Commission, if this proposal was approved it would show special treatment. Ms. Aguon further advised the Commission that first they had to find that all five conditions in section B must be present for consideration. If the Commission believes all five of the conditions are present; then the Commission may reach a conclusion that a deprivation exists if it finds that all four of the conditions in section C are reached. Chairman Cook asked where these stipulations are listed. Ms. Aguon advised Mr. Cook the verbiage could be found in subsection B and states, the applicant shall have the responsibility of proving that the strict application of the Nod subdivision ordinance creates a deprivation of use of land. The following conditions must be present for consideration. In subsection C, the verbiage reads as the modification may be granted only when in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter so that the public health, safety, and welfare may be secured and substantial justice is done. Economic hardship to the applicant shall not be deemed to constitute a deprivation of use. The Commission may reach a conclusion that a deprivation exists if it finds that those four conditions exists. Chairman Cook stated he felt Mr. Grassi had met the nine conditions and that his presentation meets that threshold. Mr. Cook asked if there were any additional comments. Mr. Schreiber stated that it goes back to the question of deprivation of land and staff and the Legal Department believe he has not met the standard of being deprived; Mr. Grassi was asking not to do the work. Ms. Aguon stated she was not taking a position, but she was only advising the Commission on their sworn duties. Mr. Cook asked Ms. Aguon what the difference between discretion and opinion was, and that it didn't make sense to him to not use his opinion along with his discretion. Planning and Zoning 17 January 10, 2024 Mr. Pharries asked if Mr. Grassi was being required to move the ditch. Mr. Schreiber advised he was not. Mr. Pharries asked if he could just leave it and let the water run down the street. Mr. Schreiber advised no; he would be required to address the off-site flow by a couple of different means. The existing ditch has not been approved by the City due to ongoing issues, although, he had continued developing for the last two years and has not addressed it previously. Chairman Cook asked Mr. Grassi if he would like to speak. Mr. Grassi stated this was not a last-minute issue, and that Wichita County Water District No. 2 only holds meetings certain times of the year. Mr. Grassi stated staff had time to review his plans and noted there is no design standard for off-site water and that he was being leveraged with the certificates of occupancy by the City for homes he already has developed and ready to sell. Mr. Rick Branum stated he had 40 years of experience and has reviewed Mr. Grassi's plans and has been working on this issue since day one when Mr. Broyles was the one to develop the subdivision. Mr. Branum stated it was late 2021 — early 2022 that issues with off-site flows were discovered. The engineering staff met with the developer and advised this issue would need to be dealt with. A plan was worked out to dig a channel to protect the homes and was deep enough to handle the water shed from the north. He stated Mr. Grassi is saying this issue only came up mid-summer of 2022 and was a sudden problem, but that is not the case, and he has many emails sent to the developer asking when the issue would be resolved and asking for updates. Mr. Branum stated a surety was put up to be able to file the plat and pull permits to build the homes. Mr. Branum advised that Mr. Broyles did not do the improvements as required and sold the lots to Mr. Grassi and walked away. He stated just before Christmas Mr. Grassi agreed and dug the channel that is not up to City design standards and not accepted by the City. Chairman Cook asked Mr. Branum to clarify if the surety was given where that money was and if it could be used for this project. Mr. Branum stated the surety was still with the City and yes, that it could be used for completion of an approved channel. Chairman Cook asked if there was any other discussion from the Commission. With no further discussion, Mr. Cook asked if there was a motion to approve a modification request by Mr. Michael Grassi, under Section 3,14 of the City Code of Ordinances, Appendix A — Subdivision and Development Regulations to Section 3.3.4 Open Channels, Pilot Channels in the City's Stormwater Design Manual for Drainage Channel Improvements, Hill and Hill Heights, Section 3, Unit 7 and unplatted northern tract, City of Wichita Falls, Wichita County, Texas. Mr. Pharries made a motion to approve the modification as presented. Mr. Blake Planning and Zoning 18 January 10, 2024 Haney seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 6 in favor and one, Commisioner McCulloch, opposed. mod VIII. ADJOURN Chairman Cook adjourned the meeting at 4:27 pm. Ji Vi9ez,t1 David Cook, Chai Date Terry loyd, Director of Development Services Date