Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 06/09/19990 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 9, 1999 PRESENT: David Rhone, Chairman . Members Cliff Berg Lou Ann Phillips Lin Purtle Danny Richardson Rusty Sons Randy Wachsman Greg Wright Ken Birck . Alternate #2 Bruce Harris . Alternate #1 Johnny Burns . Council Liaison David A. Clark, Director of Community Development . Staff Steve Seese, Planning Administrator Paul Stillson, Planner II Diane Parker, Recording Secretary ABSENT: Earl Rooks I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Rhone at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Clark introduced the four new members, Lou Ann Phillips, Ken Birck, Rusty Sons, and Bruce Harris. He welcomed them and stated he was glad to have their participation. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the audience wished to address the Commission. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Purtle made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 12, 1999 meeting. Mr. Berg seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote. Planning & Zoning Commission June 9, 1999 Pagel IV. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Public Hearing on Preliminary Plats - none received 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. A. Hal's Wash, Lot 1, Block 1 (June 1999) 1. Rename plat to " Hal's Wash Addition." 2. Provide signed copy. 3. Assure that the right -of -way of McNiel is a minimum of 70 feet in width. 4. Provide utility slips. 5. Provide storm water detention. (PW) 6. Meet curb and gutter requirements. (PW) 7. Extend sanitary sewer to serve lot. (PW) 8. Lot is served by water. (PW) 9. Platted easement required by TXU. (TXU) Mr. Wright made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Berg seconded the motion. The Consent Agenda passed with a unanimous vote in favor. V. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Request to Rezone from SF -2 to GC 11.4 Acres out of Kemp's Subdivision Case R 99 -05 Applicant ................ ............................... Harold White, Jr. and Jeanetta Schnetzer, for the Barnett Road Baptist Church Requested Action ... ............................... Rezoning from Single Family Residential to General Commercial Purpose ................. ............................... Construct A 5000 Square Foot Storage Building and Residence Property ..................... ...........................11.4 acres out of Block 5, Kemp's Subdivision, Abstract 193 Existing Land Use .. ............................... Vacant Surrounding Land Uses & Zoning ......... N: Vacant, SF -1 E: Residential, GC S: Masonic Lodge, GC W: Vacant, SF -1 Planning & Zoning Commission June 9, 1999 Page 2 Analysis: There are two property owners requesting rezoning; together they own 11.4 acres. Each owner's tract is vacant, zoned Single Family -1. The north 4.98 acres are owned by Harold White, Jr.; the south 6.41 acres are owned by the Barnett Road Baptist Church. The church joined in this rezoning request to avoid a "spot zoning" situation. The 11.4 acres were part of the 1997 Kovarik Road area annexation. Under the Zoning Ordinance, Single Family -1 zoning is given to all annexed property. Early in 1998, the City Council approved rezoning some of the recently annexed property including an area south of the applicant's property. The applicant plans to build a 5000 square foot storage building on his property. In a single family zone he could not construct this structure as it is not a residential use. Therefore, he requests General Commercial zoning, which would allow non - residential and residential buildings. Staff considered the following factors: a. Changed conditions: Staff analyzed the rezoning to identify conditions that have changed in the district or may have changed outside the district that directly or indirectly affect land use adjacency. The area consists of large tracts of vacant land. Within the past two years property to the south and east have been rezoned from residential to commercial. The rezonings were in part to bring the zoning in conformance with the existing land use patterns. b. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan: Staff considered the effects of the land uses allowed under that proposed zoning district relative to conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Plan currently designates the area low density residential; however, it consists primarily of vacant land. If this rezoning is approved, the Comprehensive Plan should be amended to reflect this zoning change. C. The nature and degree of impact upon neighboring lands: This rezoning should produce minimal negative impacts upon the surrounding properties. Staff is concerned that some of the other land uses permitted in the General Commercial zone, such as car wash, auto body repair, bar, etc. are not compatible with the surrounding residential zoning. Therefore staff is proposing a Conditioned General Commercial district for this lot. The district as presented is nearly the same as a Limited Commercial zone, with the addition of storage buildings as a permitted use. Because of the large lots and the amount of vacant land, this district does not require conformance to Section 4600, buffering adjacent to residential boundaries. If this rezoning is approved, the Commission must also recommend an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning ordinance presented to council will also contain language amending the Comprehensive Plan to bring this rezoning in conformance. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request for rezoning to a Conditioned General Commercial zone. Mr. Richardson made a motion to recommend approval of Case R 99 -05 to City Council. Mr. Sons seconded the motion. Planning & Zoning Commission June 9, 1999 Page 3 Mr. Seese stated that thirteen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Five (5) or 38.46% replied in favor and none (0) were opposed. One (1) or 7.69% replied as conditionally being in favor of the request. The above percentages were calculated by taking the actual square footage owned by each property owner plus 50% of any right -of -way adjacent to their property divided by the total square footage of land within 200 feet of the perimeter of this plat. Mr. Harold White, Jr., applicant, 2102 Avondale, stated that he has no objection to staffs recommendation and is available to answer questions. Mr. Carson Whitehead, pastor of Barnett Road Baptist Church, inquired about the height restriction of 35 feet. He stated if the church were to install a steeple it would probably exceed that height. He also asked if the hours of operation would restrict late night services or activities. With regard to the condition of limiting private recreational areas, he explained that a volunteer group of men travel in recreational vehicles to help church's with their construction. The back area of the property was proposed to be used for the hookups of the RV's. After the Church is constructed, the area would be offered as a courtesy to traveling pastors or religious teams for overnight accommodations. There would be no fees charged to these groups. Mr. Seese responded that the proposed zone would not have height restrictions or limitations on hours of operation, as would a Limited Commercial district. The parking area would not be an issue in GC(c) zoning. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval to City Council for this rezoning request. 2. Request to Permit a Mobile Home 200 Maple Street Case C 99 -13 Applicant ................ ............................... Wanda Hadnot Requested Action ... ............................... Conditional Use Permit Purpose ................. ............................... Install a mobile home. Property ................. ............................... 200 Maple Street Legal Description ... ............................... Lot 1, Block 10, Lakewood Place Surrounding Land Use & Zoning ........... N: Residences, vacant land, RMU S: Residences, RMU E: Vacant Land, RMU W: Residences, vacant land, RMU Analysis: The applicant requests approval to place a mobile home on this platted lot located at the intersection of Maple Street and East Second. The property is zoned Residential Mixed Use, and a Conditional Use permit is required to place a mobile home in this zone. The Zoning Ordinance classifies any manufactured home less than 22 feet wide as a "mobile home." Mobile homes are only permitted in mobile home parks and Residential Mixed Use Zones. The lot, addressed 200 Maple, is in the 100 year floodplain, zone AE. The floodplain elevation at this location is approximately 943.2. The City's floodplain ordinance requires that all new construction be elevated an additional one foot above the floodplain elevation (944.2). The applicant has been advised to contact a surveyor and have this required elevation identified on the property with a benchmark. A method" to accomplish the elevation, and its practicality, must be considered by the applicant when planning the installation of this home. Planning & Zoning Commission June 9, 1999 Page 4 A visual survey noted that there are vacant lots, residences, and church property in the general area. Tax records show that the existing residences were built between 1929 and 1950. The homes range in size from 576 square feet to 2,016 square feet. The applicant is proposing a 15'6" x 76 (1,178 square feet) new three - bedroom mobile home. Staff feels that this home will be compatible with existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood. Developmental Requirements: All necessary building and floodplain permits will be required for this project. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request for a new 1,178 s. f. mobile home installed with full under - skirting of a compatible material. Mr. Wright made a motion to approve this request. Ms. Phillips seconded the motion Mr. Seese stated the staff's recommendation should include removal of the wheels, axles, and towing gear and placed the home placed on a permanent foundation. The compatible building material is suggested to be steel or brick facing. Fourteen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. No responses were received. The applicant, Wanda Hadnot, was present and available if the Commission had questions. Mr. Berg inquired about placing the home on a permanent foundation to which Mr. Seese stated that is also a requirement. The Commission voted unanimously in favor to approve this request for a mobile home. 3. Request to Construct a Carport 611 Dee Drive Case C 99 -14 A motion was made and seconded to approve this carport request. Twenty -three surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Six (6) or 26.09% replied in favor and none (0) were opposed. Mr. Seese stated this lot has double frontage by facing Dee Street and having rear access from Duncan Street. The approval of this carport must be based on rear access not being reasonably possible. He presented the Commission with photographs and aerials of the property. Mr. Talmage Reed, applicant, stated the rear access to the property is directly onto a fairly busy public road (backing out could be a danger). He continued by stating that in order to access the property, his vehicle would have most of the car on Duncan Street while he was maneuvering the gate. Mr. Wachsman commented on the traffic on Duncan and that during both the day and night, the street was busy. When asked of Mr. Seese, if other residents had carport access via Duncan, he stated he was unaware of, any. Mr. Berg stated this is one of the first cases where there is access to a property from two streets. He also commented that a carport on Dee Street made more sense. He commented that while Duncan is busy, Planning & Zoning Commission June 9, 1999 Page 5 there is also a utility pole and accessory building. He would be in favor of locating the carport on Dee Street. Mr. Richardson suggested the Commission also consider the safety issue (of ingress and egress onto Duncan Street). Mr. Birck inquired about locating a turn - around in the back yard. Mr. Reed replied that proposal would take up most of his yard. Mr. Wachsman further stated the curb and gutter would need to be removed as well as an approach constructed. The Commission unanimously approved the carport 4. Request to Permit a Manufactured Home 1012 Covington Case C 99 -15 Applicant ..................... ..........................Jesus Rivas Requested Action ... ............................... Conditional Use Permit Purpose ................. ............................... Install a manufactured home Property ..................... ...........................1012 Covington Lane Legal Description ... ............................... Lot 21 A, Foley Subdivision Surrounding Land Use and Zoning ....... N: Residences, SF2 S: Residences, SF2, RMU E: Vacant Lot, SF2 W: Residences, SF2 Analysis: The applicant requests approval to place a manufactured home on this 1.3 acre platted tract located north of the intersection of Iowa Park Road and Covington Lane. The property is zoned Single Family, and in this zone installing a manufactured home requires a Conditional Use permit. The lot, 1012 Covington Lane, is in the 100 year floodplain, Zone AO. The floodplain elevation in an AO Zone is 2 feet above the highest adjacent grade on the property. The City's floodplain ordinance requires that all new construction be elevated an additional one foot above the floodplain elevation (3 feet total). The applicant has been advised to contact a surveyor and have this required elevation identified on the property with a benchmark. A method to accomplish the elevation, and its practicality, must be considered by the applicant when planning the installation of this home. Tax records show that the surrounding area consists of residences built between 1930 and 1960. The homes range in size from 780 square feet to 1,412 square feet. The applicant is proposing a 24 x 60 (1440 square feet) new manufactured home. Staff feels that this manufactured home will be compatible with existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood. Developmental Requirements: All necessary building and floodplain permits will be required for this project. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request for a new 1,440 square foot manufactured home installed with full -under skirting finished in a brick material. ng & Zoning Commission June 9, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Berg made a motion to approve this request for a manufactured home. Ms. Phillips seconded the motion. Mr. Seese stated the recommendations of approval should include that wheels, axles, and towing gear should be removed, the home should be placed on a permanent foundation, and the home should be installed with full brick underskirting. Twenty -two of the surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Three (3) or 13.64% replied in favor and one (1) or 4.55% was opposed. Mr. Jesus Rivas, applicant, stated he did not have any problems with the conditions of approval. Chairman Rhone stated this would be a good use for the land and he would be in favor of the relocation. The vote was unanimous in favor of this granting permission for the manufactured home to locate on Covington Lane. 5. Request to Permit a Limited Restaurant 2201 Kemp Blvd Case C 99 -17 Applicant ..................... ..........................Tresa M. Witte Requested Action ... ............................... Conditional Use Permit Purpose ................. ............................... Limited Restaurant in LC Property ................. ............................... 2201 Kemp Blvd. Legal Description ... ............................... Lot 15A, Block 2A, Highland Addition Surrounding Land Use & Zoning ........... N: Retail Sales, LC S: Residences, LC E: Multifamily Residence, MFR W: Tattoo Shop, Residences, LC Analysis: The applicant requests approval to establish a limited restaurant on this 100 x 150 ft. lot located on the east side of Kemp Blvd. The previous business on this site was the Kemp Street Antique Mall. The property contains two buildings, a 1,500 square foot building in the front, and a larger 2,400 square foot building in the rear, both were constructed before zoning. The applicant plans to use 1,200 square feet of the larger building for a restaurant. The remaining 1,200 square feet will be used for antique sales. Because of limited parking, the applicant will use the 1,500 square foot building only for a private office and storage. A limited restaurant is the only type of restaurant allowed in Limited Commercial Zone. The definition of a "limited restaurant" was last amended in 1997 to read as follows: RESTAURANT, LIMITED A business engaged in the serving of prepared foods which are served and primarily consumed on site, and is contained within an area of not more than 1200 square feet. Such enterprises may include, but are not limited to, salad bars, sandwich shops, ice cream parlors, tearooms, and similar uses. Planning & Zoning Commission June 9, 1999 Page 7 The applicant's proposed menu includes chopped barbecue beef, ham and turkey sandwiches, chips, potato salad and beverages. Staffs discussions with the applicant raised several questions concerning the manner in which a limited restaurant may operate. The issues are as follows: Amount and extent of cooking (re aring of foods) permitted on site -- The answer can be found in the interpretation of the term "prepared foods." Staff believes that the intent of the term is to eliminate smoke and odor detectable off -site. Therefore, permitting limited preparation of foods such as salads, beans, etc. and heating food by crockpots, microwave, etc. would meet the intent of the ordinance. Indoor or outdoor smoking of meats, frying or similar processes that create off -site smoke and odors are not permitted. 2. In other locations, staff has received complaints from residents concerning neighboring restaurant smokers, with odor and smoke being a primary concern. The odor of smoking meats may be appealing before a meal, but on a 24 hour basis it becomes a nuisance. The test of any cooking process should be, "Does it produce off -site odor and smoke ?" 3. Measurement of the restaurant size -- The intent of this provision is that the restaurant size should include all areas: kitchen, storage, restroom, hallways, dining areas, etc. 4. Number of restrooms required. -- The number of restrooms and fixtures will be determined by the Building Inspection Division. 5. Number of parking spaces required -- Parking for this use is required as follows: The applicant's site plan shows 16 parking spaces. In staffs opinion, antique sales are relatively low traffic generators and staff used 1 space per 300 sq. ft. to calculate the parking requirement for that use. The 1 per 300 ratio is the parking requirement is listed in the Parking Section as "other." Considering the type of uses proposed, the parking shown should be adequate. Parking spaces numbered 15 & 16 on the site plan are usable only if the land is leveled. 6. Alcoholic beverage sales -- In a Limited Commercial zone, on- premise alcoholic beverage sales are not permitted. _. 7. Take out, carry out food service -- The LC zoning regulations do not permit any drive - through /drive -in services. The limited restaurant definition requires on -site consumption, Planning & Zoning Commission June 9,1999 Page 8 Area in Sq. Ft", Parking'Ratio ";Spaces .Req'd. 2,400 sq. ft. Bldg Restaurant 1200 1 per 100 s.f. 12 Antique Sales 800 1 per 300 s.f. 3 Storage 400 1 per employee" 2 1,500 sq. ft. Bldg. Storage & Private Office 1500 " same employees Total Required 117 The applicant's site plan shows 16 parking spaces. In staffs opinion, antique sales are relatively low traffic generators and staff used 1 space per 300 sq. ft. to calculate the parking requirement for that use. The 1 per 300 ratio is the parking requirement is listed in the Parking Section as "other." Considering the type of uses proposed, the parking shown should be adequate. Parking spaces numbered 15 & 16 on the site plan are usable only if the land is leveled. 6. Alcoholic beverage sales -- In a Limited Commercial zone, on- premise alcoholic beverage sales are not permitted. _. 7. Take out, carry out food service -- The LC zoning regulations do not permit any drive - through /drive -in services. The limited restaurant definition requires on -site consumption, Planning & Zoning Commission June 9,1999 Page 8 although carryout other than a dedicated drive - through area, will be a reasonable occurrence. 8. Hours of operation -- The hours of operation for commercial uses in LC are limited to no earlier than 6:00 a.m. and no later than 12:00 midnight. To be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, the applicant must comply with the conditions noted above. Developmental Requirements: All necessary building permits will be required for this project. Provide three 2 inch caliper trees for landscaping requirements. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request with the condition that the parking lot be improved to accommodate the parking spaces as shown. Mr. Wright made a motion to approve this request. Mr. Berg seconded the motion. Twenty -five surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Seven (7) or 28.0% replied in favor and three (3) or 12.0 replied opposed. Mr. Seese expressed concerns of the applicant having smokers that would vent to the outside or even located outside as not being appropriate for a limited restaurant. Ms. Tresa Witte, applicant, stated she would be available to answer any questions regarding this case. Ms. Purtle inquired about paved parking, Mr. Seese stated the ordinance does not currently address parking conditions; however, there are some rough areas that will need grading. Mr. Seese reviewed the requirement for parking spaces by stating 17 would be required. The site plans shows 16 spaces, with credit for trees she is within the requirement. Mr. Roland Falk, 2112 Kemp, stated that he would like to amend his response by stating he would be in favor of this restaurant. Chairman Rhone commented that now there were eight in favor and only two opposed to this request. Mr. Birck stated he would not be opposed; he felt it would be progress in an area where it is needed. He asked if the applicant decided to expand the restaurant, what would the procedures be. Mr. Seese replied the applicant would come before this Commission. The limited restaurant passed with a unanimous vote in favor 6. Review of Conditions of Approval for Neon Spur 200 North Burnett Case C 99 -18 Excerpt from Staff Report from October 14.-1998 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting_ CaseNo ................. ............................... C 98 -39 Applicant .................... ...........................Toby Wood, President, Neon Spur, Inc. Requested action ... ............................... Conditional Use Permit Purpose ................. ............................... Outdoor Entertainment in RDD Planning & Zoning Commission June 9, 1999 Page 9 Property ................. ............................... 200 -202 North Burnett St. Legal Description ... ............................... 55.4 x 102.3 feet & the South 40 x 102.3 feet of Block N, Original Townsite. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning ....... N: Residences, Restaurant, RDD S: Machine Shop, Restaurant, RDD E: Bridwell Agricultural Complex, RDD W: Residences, SF -2 Analysis: The applicant requests approval for outdoor entertainment in the River Development District (RDD) zone. The property is located north of the Wichita River and west of MPEC. The applicant is in the process of remodeling this former grocery store into a barbecue restaurant. The business as described will include outdoor seating and music. The Conditional Use application describes the restaurant as including, "outdoor C &W fare, light acoustic /vocal; outdoor seating, music for customer listening pleasure." Staff has determined the described activity would be classified as "outdoor entertainment and recreation" requiring a Conditional Use Permit. The term is defined by the Zoning Ordinance as: Recreational uses conducted in open or partially enclosed or screen facilities. Typical uses include driving ranges, miniature golf courses, swimming pools, tennis courts, and outdoor racquetball courts. Although outdoor music is not referenced in the definition, staff interpreted the category to include "music" as it is a commonly recognized form of entertainment. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request on the condition that the applicant understands that it will be his responsibility to conduct the outdoor activities so as not to cause an auditory nuisance for nearby residents. Excerpt from Minutes of October 14, 1998 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: Thirteen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Three (3) or 23.07% replied in favor and one (1) or 7.69% was opposed. Mr. Rhone made a motion to approve this request. Mr. Franklin seconded the motion. Mr. Seese stated he would like to modify the staff recommendation to "not cause a nuisance for nearby residents." The word "auditory" was eliminated. Mr. Andy Lee, representative for Neon Spur, Inc., stated that music is not mentioned in the Zoning Ordinance as a form of entertainment. He stated there would be no loud music, just acoustic guitar and country western. He also reminded the Commission that the Ag Center has outdoor speakers which blasts the neighborhood when rodeos and other events are held there. He stated the project has been underway for several months and the neighbors are aware of this development. The request was approved with a unanimous vote in favor Mr. Seese stated this item was placed on the agenda because of citizen complaints regarding this issue.~ The only condition of approval for the restaurant was that it would not cause a nuisance for residents. The staff report shows five responses from the police to this location for noise. He informed the Commission that recently an outdoor concert was held there with tables and chairs located in the parking lot. This violates both the site plan and the zoning ordinance. Restaurant patrons used MPEC's parking lot which is Planning & Zoning Commission June 9, 1999 Page 10 not allowed because they do not have a joint parking agreement. Mr. Seese stated this restaurant is an excellent opportunity for outdoor entertainment; however, because of the intensity of the land use and insufficient parking, this land use is not compatible with the adjoining properties. He then stated that the restaurant should be given another opportunity to conform with the initial intent. The following is a list of recommended conditions to allow continuance of this establishment: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 They will not be a nuisance to nearby residents. Music will cease after 10:00 p.m. No amplified music. Plan submitted for onsite parking to include in platforms, and on- ground open areas. the restaurants total square footage, all decks, Required on -site parking areas to be used only for parking and not for tables and chais and other onsite uses. Mr. Andy Lee, 2611 Plaza Parkway, and Mr. Toby Wood, Route 2, Box 16, both appeared before the Commission. Mr. Lee stated he was not aware of the conditions listed above. He asked for the City Legal Dept. to make a determination regarding these conditions and whether they should be discussed and /or voted on today since he received no notification of the conditions. Mr. Lee stated the police reports that were noted above were for only three different events. The restaurant has been open 270 days and has held approximately 52 entertainment events. Mr. Lee explained in detail the events occurring during those three nights: Nov. 22. 1998 - Geronimo, the next door neighbor, called to complain. It was a holiday weekend. April 6. 1999 - Easter weekend, a band traveling through town wanted to play at the Spur. Mr. Lee stated there were two calls that weekend to the police. May 8. 1999 - Mr. Lee stated this was a birthday party that brought their own band. There were also two calls that night. Both in April and May, the sound had traveled north to North Third Street, which was substantially outside the 200 foot perimeter of the Neon Spur's property. Mr. Lee stated there have been no further problems from Geronimo, he comes over (to the Spur) to eat barbecue or we (the Spur) take him barbecue. Other complaints consisted of overflow parking on Burnett Street, Mr. Lee stated. He explained that in front of the Spur there is a right -of -way to the west of MPEC. From the bridge to North Third, that area has been used for picking up food from the restaurant next door or from the Spur. Mr. Lee stated that as the restaurant grew in volume, they used that property for parking and he have no control over the customers parking there. Recently, Code Enforcement put "no parking" signs on the property and the wait staff of the restaurant discourages customers from parking there. He continued by stating that he cannot police parking in a public right -of -way. Mr. Richardson asked Mr. Wood about the time the music is turned off. Mr. Wood stated they turn it off at 10:00 p.m. The event on Easter weekend (April 6, 1999) ended at 10:05 or 10:15 p.m. He stated some officers came to the restaurant to discuss the matter and they were ready to turn it (the music) off. Mr. Wood further stated that on May 8, 1999 the music ceased at 10:02 p.m. Mr. Wood suggested getting a clarification of "nuisance ". He felt it should be addressed if one or two people can declare it (the music) a nuisance. Mr. Wood stated that they are trying to work with the neighborhood. To questioning by Chairman Rhone, Mr. Wood said that bands do not play after 10:00 p.m. Occasionally, acoustical guitars will play later, but they are quieter and there are no drums. Planning & Zoning Commission June 9, 1999 Page 11 Mr. Lee stated that the 10:00 p.m. was decided between Toby (Mr. Wood), the police, and others involved in order not to be a nuisance. Mr. Lee continued by stating there is no ordinance or time set for anybody to adhere to. Unilaterally, the police feel that, on weekends, anything causing problems or phone calls after 10:00 p.m. is certainly a nuisance and they respond to it. Mr. Lee presented a petition of 700 - 800 citizens, residing within and outside the City limits, to the Commission to support outdoor, live entertainment at the Neon Spur. The petition also stated the cutoff time for music and entertainment should be 1:00 a.m. The time was decided after substantial research in cities like Austin, Ft. Worth, Dallas in their downtown areas. If a time is established by City Council and enforced, then it would be easier for all, he stated. Mr. Seese explained the procedure for submitting a petition, which is to submit it to the City Clerk's office for address verification. He stated that staff is required to go through this process (review by P &Z Commission) whether one or one hundred complaints are received. He stated that the Traffic Dept. installed the "no parking" signs, not Code Enforcement. Mr. Seese felt the comparison to the larger cities was not valid because the Neon Spur is located in close proximity to residents. He stated his first intent was to sit down with Neon Spur to try to work through the complaints. Then, the news media overstated some of these problems. Mr. Seese continued by stating there are problems because of the residential dwellings. He suggested trying to work these things out. Chairman Rhone stated he would like to discuss these issues, the deck, the parking, and the 10:00 p.m. music cutoff. Mr. Wood commented that the options should be discussed. Chairman Rhone indicated there would not be a vote on issues just review the stipulations on the original conditional use permit. Mr. Richardson recalled the original discussion concerned acoustical guitar and the entertainment has changed to amplified music since that time. Mr. Wood commented that removing the entertainment would significantly affect the Spur's sales. Mr. Wood agreed with Mr. Seese's comment that this issue has been exaggerated. Mr. Seese made a recommendation to review these issues with Mr. Wood and bring a report to the next Commission meeting. Ms. Rebecca Barron, 1206 North Third Street, stated she was one of the complainants to the police. She expressed concerns about the loud noise, the boisterous crowds, her privacy, increased traffic, and the debris consisting of cans and bottles in the neighborhood. Ms. Barron indicated that the neighborhood was primarily elderly Hispanics and it is their custom not to complain. Chairman Rhone thanked Ms. Barron for expressing her feelings. He also stated the Commission was very sympathetic to her concerns. Ms. Mary R. Valdez, 1316 North Third Street, commented that she was also a complainant. Her concerns were the loud noise and basically the same as Ms. Barron's. Mr. Birck inquired about not receiving any negative responses from the neighborhood. Ms. Barron stated she did not know about the meeting until the Times Record News called her for an opinion about this issue. Chairman Rhone again thanked Ms. Barron and Ms. Valdez for their participation in this meeting. Ms. Jean Sherrill, 1212 North Fifth Street, stated the neighborhood is trying to organize a neighborhood crime watch program. She commented that her concerns were the same as Ms. Barron's. She asked the Commission to take all the concerns into consideration. Planning & Zoning Commission June 9, 1999 Page 12 Mr. Seese responded to Mr. Birck's questioning by stating the law requires the City Planning Office to mail to a 200 foot radius from the perimeter of the property for rezoning cases. The City continued to use that same radius on other issues, such as conditional use permits. He also stated that Ms. Barron's address is outside the 200' notification area. Chairman Rhone suggested that staff meet with Mr. Lee, Mr. Wood, and the Commission to arrive at a compromise on this issue. He commented that the homeowners as well as the business owner both have investments to protect. Chairman Rhone also recommended that the homeowners come to this meeting to share the views. Councilor Burns stated that the parties involved should be able to work on these issues without a spotlight on them. The meetings should include the homeowners in order for them to see that the City and the Neon Spur is working together. Issues such as these should be able to be resolved before the light gets shined on them. Regarding the crime issue, Council Burns stated that development such as this restaurant will help the crime issue in the neighborhood. These are legitimate business owners who cannot afford to have illegal activity involved in their business. The development of these types of establishments in neighborhoods would be beneficial. It sounds life this issue can be resolved with both parties satisfied. Mr. Wade Hanson, 4621 Shady Lane, remarked that the property in the area, since he opened the Neon Spur, has increased in value by 100 %. He stated this establishment has increased the value of their homes and helped the surrounding area. Mr. Clark suggested a meeting of one or two Commission members, Mr. Seese, and the owners of the Spur. He emphasized meeting with a smaller group in order to work together more efficiently. Ms. Purtle stated the Spur is a wholesome establishment and she hoped this issue could be resolved. Ms. Barron commented that the MPEC noise is not heard from her house because it is inside the building. She stated she had no complaints about MPEC. VI. OTHER BUSINESS 1. City Council Update a. Results of Council decision to rezone South Park Addition, Lots 8 -14 from RMU to HC Mr. Clark stated that Council upheld the Commission's recommendation to appoint Mr. Rhone as Chairman. He also stated that the rezoning to Heavy Commercial of the South Park Addition, Lots 8 -14, was approved. 2. Discussion of Items of Concern to Members of the P&Z Commission Mr. Seese congratulated the new members of this Commission and thanked them for volunteering their time. He also thanked Mr. Rhone for accepting the Chairmanship of this Commission. VII. ADJOURN _.. The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Planning & Zoning Commission June 9, 1999 Page 13 i I /4/ David Rhone, Chairman Date ATTEST: Steve City Plan ministrator Planning & Zoning Commission June 9, 1999 Page 14 Date rr VED IN o ;;LERWS OFFICE j...e BV