Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 08/11/1999MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 11, 1999 PRESENT: RECEIVED - IN CITY CLERK',", OFFICE Date to—'8— a q David Rhone, Chairman . Members Lou Ann Phillips Lin Purtle Danny Richardson Earl Rooks 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: Cliff Berg . Member I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Rhone at 2:00 p.m. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Mark Wilson, 1803 Club View, expressed concern about a Conditional Use Permit that was approved at a Planning & Zoning meeting held December 9, 1998 (C 98 -50) Expansion of a Church Use at 4015 Lake Park Drive). His comments included remarks about noise, amplified music, traffic and no controlled curfew. He suggested relocating this facility to another location. Chairman Rhone asked for a show of hands of the people wishing to address this item. He stressed that only the plat for that property was being reviewed, no other action would be considered. He stated the plat would be moved from the Consent Agenda down to the Regular Agenda so items could be discussed. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 9, 1999 Mr. Birck made a motion to approve the minutes of that meeting. Ms. Purtle seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote. Planning & Zoning Commission August 11, 1999 Page 1 July 14, 1999 Ms. Phillips made a motion to approve the minutes of that meeting. Mr. Harris seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote. IV. CONSENT AGENDA A. Public Hearing on Preliminary Plats ♦ Provide utility and drainage easements as required by utility companies and the Director of Public Works. ♦ Submit water and sewer plans to the Utilities Engineer; water plans to the Fire Marshall and street, sidewalk and drainage plans to the Director of Public Works. Drainage plans must be complete enough to include impact on surrounding property and include detention facilities as required by Director of Public Works. ♦ Coordinate street lighting plan and provide utility easements as required by the Director of Traffic and Transportation. ♦ Submit two (2) copies of corrected preliminary plat to Planning Division before final platting. Note: Approval of a plat does not imply development of property in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Recommend approval subject to standard conditions and any specific conditions listed below: 1. Bridge Creek Estates (Aug. `99) a Show a boundary around areas that are final platted and label "platted." b Show building limit lines on all lots. C. Change Ironwood Drive to Ironwood Circle. d. Continue Shady Grove Lane and remove Joy Lane. e. Remove "park" and give tract a lot and block number. Remove extensions of park along the east side of Bridge Creek. f. Remove any medians, and reduce Bridge Creek Drive to 80 feet. g. Blocks 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are not approved due to lack of detail concerning public vs. privately owned property, building limit lines, and uses of various strips of land shown therein. Note previous 1996 Plat Committee comments on design of rear access drives. h. Revise plat and re -file with corrections. Corrections must be complete before final platting of additional lots. i. Check with water improvement district concerning the abandonment of irrigation canal. Furnish letter stating that there is no objection to its removal. If canal cannot be abandoned, revise plat to insure buildable lots. j. Coordinate with Public Works the abandonment of 24 -inch raw water line easement. If easement cannot be abandoned, revise plat to insure buildable lots. k.. Show volume and page for Texaco pipeline easement. 1. Resolve ownership of canal. m. Provide stormwater detention. (PW) n. Extend water and sewer to all lots. (PW) o. No street or curb and gutter issues. (PW) p. Medians - reduce Bridge Creek ROW (Parks) q. Bridge Creek ROW - extend lots to street ROW. (Parks) Planning & Zoning Commission August 11, 1999 Page 2 r. Several lots are not buildable (Lots 6 and 7, Block 1; Lot 15, Block 1; Lot 45, Block 8; Lot 35, Block 1). (Inspections) S. Additional 10 -foot easement required on north line of 35 -foot wide drainage and utility easement on Block 17, Lot 1. (TXU) B. Public Hearing on Final Plats ♦ Provide utility and drainage easements as required by utility companies and the Director of Public Works. ♦ Submit water and sewer plans to the Utilities Engineer; water plans to the Fire Marshall and street, sidewalk and drainage plans to the Director of Public Works. Drainage plans must be complete enough to include impact on surrounding property and include detention facilities as required by Director of Public Works. ♦ Coordinate street lighting plan and provide utility easements as required by the Director of Traffic and Transportation, if underground electric utilities are to be provided. Recommend approval subject to standard conditions and any specific conditions listed below: 1. Arbor Hill Section 2 (Aug. `99) a. Provide utility slips. b. Provide signatures. C. No street, curb and gutter or drainage issues. (PW) d. Extend water and sewer to all lots. (PW) e. Stormwater detention required. (PW) 2. Guam Estates, Section 1, Block 3, Lots 12 -B, 13 -B, 15 -8, 16 -13, 17 -B, & 19 -A (Aug. `99) a. Provide signed copy. b. Provide utility slips. C. Provide 10 -foot setback between zero -lot line Lot 11 -A and conventional building on Lot 12- B. See 5240 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance. On Lot 12 -B show setback of 10 foot adjacent to Lot 11 -A and 5 foot adjacent to Lot 13 -B. d. Stormwater detention not required. (PW) e. Served with water and sewer. (PW) f. No street or curb and gutter issues. (PW) 3. Melody Ranch Estates, Lot 13 -A (Aug. `99) a. Show 20 -foot dedication along the south line of Lot 13 as recorded in Volume 1081, page 185, WCDR. Relocate building limit line as necessary. b. Show right -of -way width of Rathgeber Road. C. Provide utility slips. d. Provide signed copy. e. Served with water. (PW) f. Extend sewer. (PW) g. Curb and gutter required. (PW) h. Stormwater detention required. (PW) i. No drainage or street issues. (PW) 4. Park Place Subdivision, Block L, Lot 1 (Aug. `99) - moved to Regular Agenda Planning & Zoning Commission August 11, 1999 Page 3 5. ZNLS Addition, Block 1, Lot 1 (Aug. `99) a. This property does not front on a public street. It is separated from Iowa Park Road by a railroad right -of -way. Approval of this plat is conditional upon the granting of a waiver of the street frontage requirement by the City Council. b. Provide utility slips. C. Provide signed copy. d. Note: any construction in the 100 -year floodplain must be elevated to one foot above floodplain elevation. e. Provide public access. (PW) f. Stormwater detention required. (PW) g. Extend sewer and water. (PW) h. Note on plat that in Abstract. 254, G. W. Scott Survey and Abstract. 110, J. R. Cook Survey, a drainage easement was granted by Gordon T. West to Wichita County Water Improvement District No. 1 and to Wichita County Water Improvement District No. 2 and is filed under Vol. 601, Page 189 in Wichita County Deed Records as recorded on the 28th day of March, 1953. The deed was for the purpose of the construction, maintenance, and operation of canals, lateral drainage ditches, and spoil banks along said ditches, said drainage ditch shall be located on and over the described lands in Abstracts. 254 and 40 as stated above. (WCID #2) Mr. Seese stated that the developer asked that the Bridge Creek Estate plat be removed from the agenda. Chairman Rhone stated that the Park Place Subdivision would be considered at the Regular Agenda, as previously mentioned. Mr. Wright made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Richardson seconded the motion. The Consent Agenda passed with a unanimous vote in favor. V. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Park Place Subdivision, Block L, Lot 1 (Aug. `99) a. Show building limit line at sixty feet as required by Park Place Subdivision restrictive covenants (Vol. 272, page 352, Art. I, WCDR) or resubmit plat for notification public hearing process (Section 212.015 Texas Local Government Code). Notice must be given to property owners within 200 feet if a replat attempts to remove recorded covenants or restrictions. b. Provide signed copy. C. Provide utility slips. d. Note: any construction in the 100 -year floodplain must be elevated to one foot above floodplain elevation. e. Show Brenda Hursh Drive as "previously dedicated." f. Served with water and sewer. (PW) g. No street or curb and gutter issues. (PW) h. Stormwater detention required. (PW) i. Improve drainage channel and dedicate drainage easement. (PW) Mr. Harris made a motion to approve this plat. Ms. Purtle seconded the motion. Mr. Seese explained that this plat approval has nothing to do with the proposed property use. Mr. Richard Boyd, Corlett, Probst and Boyd, suggested that most of the objections should be considered at another forum. The original plans did show an amphitheater which has been deleted from the current plans. It is not an intention of the Church to construct such a facility. Planning & Zoning Commission August 11, 1999 Page 4 Mr. Greg Wright stated that he is a member of the Church and will abstain from voting. Mr. Seese reiterated concerns about discussion of the previously approved Conditional Use Permit for this property will need to be reserved for another meeting. Comments will be heard at this meeting but no action will be taken. The following citizens expressed concerns for the Conditional Use Permit that was approved for 4015 Lake Park Drive (generally speaking in opposition): Mrs. Pete Graham, 1800 Barna Ms. Naoma Clark, 4001 Lake Park Mr. Robert Clark, 4001 Lake Park Mr. Jim Heiman, 1805 Club View In summary, their complaints were loud noise consisting of yelling, cheering, screaming, and bouncing balls, amplified music including the use of "boom boxes," devaluation of property values, increased traffic, flooding and drainage problems. Noise complaints were also noted after midnight, and sometimes to early morning hours, during the week and on weekends. Ms. Clark also stated that she wanted her nuisance complaint and opposition formally noted for the record for the continued approval of the Conditional Use Permit granted on December 9, 1998. She continued by stating she opposed any expansion of facilities beyond the existing footprint of the residential property (located at 4015 Lake Park Drive) which is clearly outlined, addressed, and prohibited by City ordinances. Further expansion of events and activities at an entertainment complex is unacceptable and inappropriate in a residential neighborhood. She asked for three actions to be considered: 1) Take this opportunity to formally acknowledge that this is a nuisance for a residential neighborhood and file this complaint. 2) This forum (P &Z) avoid abusive discretion that would be evidenced in the continued approval of this Conditional Use Permit granted on December 9, 1999. 3) Enforce the ordinances that exist. This is a residential property, zoned residential, and she is requesting it be brought into compliance. Mr. Isaac Butterworth, pastor, stated he was surprised and moved by the feelings of the neighbors for the inconvenience they have incurred. He further commented that he wanted to be responsive to their needs. He countered several complaints by stating that teenagers must abide by the curfews and they are carefully supervised. After hours, the Church cannot control the activities that occur on that property. He stated that he has not received any telephone calls complaining about these circumstances. Chairman Rhone explained a similar situation in a previous meeting of a nuisance complaint. Staff, neighbors, and business owners met and resolved their differences. He suggested this group also meet to resolve this conflict. Mr. Seese stated the Church and a neighborhood representative (s) should meet and staff would mediate this activity. Chairman Rhone stated the Commission could not vote or act on this situation at this meeting. Mr. Butterworth stated he wanted to be cooperative and participate in an exercise to resolve this situation. Mr. Harris inquired if religious assembly in SF -2 is permitted. Mr. Seese stated religious assembly is allowed with conditional use approval for the management of traffic, setbacks, additional uses, and management of the building process. Mr. Harris then inquired if conditional use approval was granted in 1987 when it transferred from being a residence to a religious use. Mr. Seese stated that a historical use accounting would be required if the Commission felt that degree of research was necessary. Planning & Zoning Commission August 11, 1999 Page 5 Mr. Seese suggested to the property owners that the deed restrictions be researched. The City does not enforce those restrictions, and that action is handled through the civil court system. Ms. Liz Miller, 2409 Lou Lane, stated she recently sold property in the immediate area of the Church's activity center. She felt there was not proper neighborhood notification and news coverage of the situation. Ms. Purtle stated Ms. Rebecca Lanmon expressed concern at the December 9, 1998 meeting regarding the expansion of an activity center at this location. Mr. Doug Paul, architect, commented at that meeting that the neighbors had not complained to the Church about the proposed expansion. The staff advised the Commission that the standard neighborhood notification had been done for the conditional use process. Mr. Carroll B. Laing, 4315 Lake Park Drive, stated there have not been any complaints, from Ms. Lanmon or other neighbors, about these activities to the Church. Councilor Burns recalled that at the December 9, 1998 meeting that he suggested to the Church that they should investigate some of the concerns expressed at that meeting. He stated to one of the Church members that contact should be made with the neighborhood. He expressed his disappointment over the lack of communication on the part of the Church. Mr. Butterworth and Councilor Burns then discussed land use changes. Chairman Rhone reminded the Commission that the item being considered was the approval of the plat for the Wilson House property and not the use or changes of the use. Mr. Birck stated, "I want to protest this vote. I think it will give the Church a little more weight and validity prematurely. I wish we could postpone it." Ms. Clark stated, "I do not want to divert attention from the existing footprint ordinance, the provisions and ordinance of the existing footprint of an original structure. That is a legal issue in the City ordinances. Yes, I have a problem with the usage but I am asking you to pay attention to your legal responsibility as the law is written about granting and allowing an abusive discretion to expand beyond the original footprint of a building. I do not want the attention misdirected from that." Mr. Seese reviewed the plat with the Commission showing the different streets, property lines, and flood plain. He stated there is no use designated on this plat nor is there a footprint. The plat defines property corners and it must be approved or disapproved at this meeting according to State law. Mr. Birck asked, "if this were approved today, how would this relate to our future discussions with the Church? And if not with the Church, then future decisions on what action to take on regarding the Conditional Use Permit." Mr. Seese replied that the decision would have no bearing on it. There was discussion regarding building on and over property lines. Mr. Clark stated that, since a Conditional Use Permit has already been approved, plat approval is one of the requirements before construction can begin on the church property. Mr. Seese gave a brief explanation of the December meeting when the Church obtained approval for extended use. He asked if circumstances had changed regarding the land use on the property. Voices from the audience commented that the neighbors were not informed of this change in December. Mr. Seese presented a map showing the required 200 foot notification area for the conditional use process. He also stated that a plat does not require notification of property owners. Chairman Rhone stated that only the plat was being considered at this meeting. Commission members are to determine whether this plat has a negative impact on the community and they are not to consider the land use. Mr. Clark commented that the plat has nothing to do with the structure. ' Ms. Phillips questioned items "h." and 'T" on the plat comments. Mr. Seese explained the stormwater detention ordinance by stating the result after construction must be zero impact. He addressed the drainage channel issue by stating the solution could be incorporated with the stormwater solution. Planning & Zoning Commission August 11, 1999 Page 6 Ms. Clark asked about the motivation of the Church to require this replat. Mr. Boyd responded by stating that when this land was originally platted in the 1920's, Lots L and K were two rectangular lots. When Brenda Hursh Drive was constructed through Lot L, the property was never replatted. He further commented that this replat was merely a housekeeping measure. Objection was voiced by Ms. Clark. Mr. Boyd responded that the conditional use approval was conditional on this property being replatted and a building permit be issued within twelve months. Mr. Wright suggested that the neighbors' opinions should be a consideration. He encouraged the Commission to be consistent in all areas of town. Chairman Rhone agreed with Mr. Wright. He suggested the Church and neighbors should with the Commission to resolve differences. The vote for approval of the plat was eight (8) in favor, one (1) opposed, and one (1) abstained. Chairman Rhone stated the Commission is fully aware of the neighborhood opposition to the Church's expansion. He charged the Commission and staff to meet with the opposing neighbors to resolve the differences. Mr. Seese offered the City act as a facilitator /arbitrator for the meetings. Ms. Clark expressed that she had no interest in any discussions on this issue with an arbitrator. Mr. Harris asked if the City Legal Dept. had been consulted about the withdrawal of the conditional use permit. Mr. Seese stated they are reviewing that request. Mr. Birck stated that the opposition has not had time to organize a group and appoint or elect representatives to meet. 2. Request for Rezoning from SF -2 to LC 2603 and 2605 Ninth Street Case R 99 -06 Applicant ........... ............................... Maxine Spomer Holland Requested Action ............................. Rezoning from Single Family -2 to Limited Commercial Purpose ............ ............................... To construct a parking lot Property ............ ............................... 2603 & 2605 Ninth Street Existing Land Use ............................ Vacant zoned SF -2 Surrounding Land Uses & Zoning .... N Offices, SF -2 E: Offices, LC S: English Pharmacy, GC W: Residence, SF -2 Analysis: This property is located near the southwest corner of Kemp and Ninth. The two lots are on the south side of Ninth Street, just west of Amador Insurance (former Spomer Travel). Across the street to the north are two offices. The property is currently zoned Single Family -2. The applicant has indicated on her application that the property will be used for parking for the insurance office. Under the existing Single Family Zoning, commercial parking is not permitted. She is requesting a zoning change to Limited Commercial to allow the parking use. However, once zoned Limited Commercial, the property may be used for any of the permitted uses in the Limited Commercial district. 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 two residences formerly on these two lots have been removed. Planning & Zoning Commission August 11, 1999 Page 7 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 lots Light Commercial; that land use category being roughly equivalent to the Limited Commercial zoning district. C. The nature and degree of impact upon neighboring lands: This rezoning, with the buffering required by the Zoning Ordinance should produce minimal negative impacts upon the surrounding properties. If this rezoning is approved, it would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request for rezoning to Limited Commercial Mr. Richardson made a motion to recommend approval to City Council for the rezoning. Mr. Wachsman seconded the motion. Twenty -six surrounding property owners were notified of this rezoning request. None (0) replied in favor and eight (8) or 25% were opposed. Two (2) from outside the notification area replied as opposed, also. 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. Chairman Rhone asked if the applicant or her representative were present. There was no response. The following citizens expressed concerns for this rezoning request: Ms. Mary Gibbons, 2611 Ninth Street Mr. Kevin Goodknecht, 2607 Ninth Street Mr. Robert Butterfield, 2609 Ninth Street Ms. Janie Goodknecht, 2607 Ninth Street In summary, they were displeased with their interpretation of inappropriate notification to the neighborhood, devaluation of property values, negative impact on surrounding properties, increased traffic including delivery trucks in the alley, increased litter in yards, flooding and drainage problems. Mr. Seese responded to the notification objection that State law requires notification of properties located within 200' of the perimeter of the property. Mr. Clark continued by stating that their responses are not a vote but an indication to the Commission and City Council of the will and feelings of the neighborhood. The question was asked if the Commission denied approval, what would be the procedure. Mr. Seese replied that they could still proceed for Council action. The Commission expressed regrets that the applicant was not present to answer their questions and clarify matters. Mr. Seese suggested that this item could be tabled and reviewed at a later meeting. Mr. Wright suggested that a site plan would be helpful in making a decision on this case. Ms. Purtle called the question. The vote was zero (0) in favor and ten (10) opposed. The recommendation to Council for the rezoning did not pass. Planning & Zoning Commission August 11, 1999 Page 8 3. Request to Construct Retail Establishment in Limited Commercial 2601 Harrison Case C 99 -25 Applicant ........... ............................... John Hirschi Requested Action ............................. Conditional Use Permit Purpose ............ ............................... To construct 8,000 square feet of retail space Property ............ ............................... 2601 Harrison, zoned Limited Commercial Existing Land Use ............................ Offices, retail and restaurant Surrounding Land Uses & Zoning .... N Residences, SF -2 E: Duplexes, SF -2 S: Residences, SF -2 W: Vacant land, Park, SF -2 & LC Analysis This property is located at the southeast corner of Speedway and Harrison. The main structure on the site was originally the sales office for the County Club Estates Subdivision. The building was later converted into retail and office space. In 1997 the north portion of the building was approved for use as a limited restaurant. The applicant's site plan proposes a 3,750 square foot addition to the existing building and a new 4250 square foot freestanding structure built to the south. Both buildings (8,000 s.f.) are proposed for retail use. The parking requirement for 8,000 s.f. of retail space is 40 spaces. When the restaurant was approved, 22 parking spaces were required for the restaurant and associated office and retail. The staffs analysis of the proposed parking is as follows: Existing parking required New parking provided Total parking on site Parking Required: Existing structures 8,000 s.f. new retail Parking credit for two landscaped islands 22 spaces spaces 59 Spaces 22 spaces 40 spaces spaces 1.5 spaces credit each 59 spaces required As the above figures show, the proposed parking meets requirements. However the 1997 requirement for 22 parking spaces was based on the existing combination of office, storage, retail and restaurant use. Any change in the ratio of these existing uses (converting office to retail for example) may result in a situation were the project becomes parking deficient. A copy of the 1997 site plan is included with this report. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request with the following condition: The square footage of the existing retail, office, storage, and restaurant as shown in the 1997 site plan shall not be changed in any manner that would require more parking spaces. Planning & Zoning Commission August 11, 1999 Page 9 Mr. Wright made a motion to approve this conditional use request. Mr. Harris seconded the motion Mr. Seese refreshed the Commission by stating this is the same property where a case regarding approval of a limited restaurant was heard several years ago. Thirty -two surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Four (4) replied in favor and twelve (12) were opposed. Mr. Bobby Schaaf, 2417 Dartmouth, representing Mr. John Hirschi, applicant, presented the Commission a map of the area complete with zoning districts indicated. He briefly described the surrounding location by indicating where the residences and businesses are located. Mr. Schaaf explained the site plan, parking situation, potential lessees, and a description of the new building's exterior. To questioning, Mr. Schaaf responded that the building was constructed in 1925. Mr. Tim Connolly, 2300 Farington, co -owner of Pasqual's, expressed favorable support for this proposed construction. Mr. Charlie Prothro, 2028 Avondale, stated he is in favor of this request. Ms. Jackie Spragins, 2009 Speedway #1, stated that she sent in a negative response; however, she does not have a problem with this development. She asked if another restaurant could locate in this building. Mr. Seese responded that another restaurant could occupy the space currently leased to Pasqual's. If the restaurant expanded or another one were to locate in the building, their parking requirements would be increased. He also stated that only a limited restaurant could locate in this zoning district. She asked if a variance for parking could be granted to accommodate another restaurant. Mr. Seese replied that if such a request we submitted, the neighbors would be notified but he felt that because there is no hardship that a variance request would not be considered. Mr. Scott Gordon, 2013 Speedway #1, stated that he responded negatively; however, after talking with Mr. Hirschi he has changed his mind and would support the request. Mr. Birck commented on the street parking. Mr. Seese stated the required parking is in the parking lots only; street parking is not included. Mr. Seese assured him, if the street parking became a hazard, there would be "no parking" signs posted. The vote was ten (10) in favor and none (0) opposed. 4. Request for Rezoning from LC to GC(c) 2206 Brook Avenue Case R 99 -07 Applicant ........... ............................... Hal Williams Requested Action ............................. Rezoning from Limited Commercial to Conditioned General Commercial Purpose ............ ............................... To construct a car wash Property ............ ............................... 2206 Brook Existing Land Use ............................ Vacant florist shop, zoned LC Surrounding Land Uses & Zoning .... N: Kell Blvd., LC E: Offices, LC S: School, LC W: Kell Blvd., LC Analysis: The property is located at the southwest corner of Brook and Kell Blvd. There are several structures on this triangular lot including two greenhouses. The oldest buildings were constructed in 1925 and have been used as a floral shop for many years. To the south of this property is WFISD's Brook Village Early Childhood Center. On the east side of Brook is an office building. Planning & Zoning Commission August 11, 1999 Page 10 The property is zoned Limited Commercial and is part of a LC district established in 1985. Since the current Limited Commercial zoning does not allow car washes, the applicant requests a zoning change to Conditioned General Commercial zoning. The requested "conditioned" zoning contains provisions permitting a car wash as a conditional use. 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 small retail and service businesses and residences. Conditional use requests in this area have included a grocery store, coffee shop, and oil change business. The school building south of this lot was converted in 1995 from a church school to a public school. 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 "Light Commercial." The "conditioned" zone contains elements of both the Limited Commercial and General Commercial zone. The Light Commercial land use is roughly equivalent to Limited Commercial zoning. C. The nature and degree of impact u on neighboring lands: The requested car wash could produce an increase in traffic and noise in the general area. Conditions placed on the actual development may reduce these impacts. (See Case 99 -26). Staff is concerned that some of the other land uses permitted in the General Commercial zone, such as, auto body repair, bar, etc. are not compatible with the surrounding Limited Commercial zoning. The conditioned district as presented is similar to a Limited Commercial zone, with the addition of car wash as a conditional use. There is no restriction upon hours of operation as a car wash is typically operated 24 hours a day. Recommendation: Staff recommends that careful consideration be given to this rezoning request, recognizing the impact that the proposed use may have upon the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Purtle made a motion to recommend approval of this rezoning request to City Council. Mr. Wachsman seconded the motion. Six (6) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One (1) or 14.43% replied in favor and one (1) or .42% was opposed. 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. Seese explained that this conditioned zoning merely adds a car wash to the Limited Commercial requirement, LC is appropriate but the full uses in GC would not be. Six surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One (1) replied in favor and one (1) was opposed. Planning & Zoning Commission August 11, 1999 Page 11 Mr. Howard Morris, representing the owner, stated Mr. David Potter, architect, was also available to answer any questions. Mr. Potter described the building as having brick walls with a composition, sloped roof to add a residential flair. Mr. Harris stated he would vote in favor of this request because it was time for a change to that property. Mr. Sons commented that he agreed with Mr. Harris and thought it was a good idea. The recommendation to City Council passed with a unanimous vote of ten (10) in favor. 5. Request to Construct a Car Wash in GC(c) 2206 Brook Avenue Case C 99 -26 Applicant ........... ............................... Hal Williams Requested Action ............................. Conditional Use Permit Purpose ............ ............................... To construct a car wash Property ............ ............................... 2206 Brook Existing Land Use ............................ Vacant Florist Shop zoned LC Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning .............................. N: Kell Blvd., LC E: Offices, LC S: School, LC W: Kell Blvd., LC Analysis: This request is related to Case R 99 -07 concerning the rezoning of 2206 Brook to Conditioned General Commercial. If the rezoning is approved, the Conditioned General Commercial regulations require conditional use permit approval of the site plan. The applicant's site plan shows six bays with possibly an equipment room. Access will be taken from Brook Avenue. A car wash can have significant off -site impacts of noise, lighting, aesthetics, and traffic. Staff makes the following recommendations as follows: 1. Provide a hipped roof with a 5 to 1 pitch. This is the applicant's proposal to increase neighborhood compatibility and the appearance along Kell. 2. Provide only one curb cut on Kell and one curb cut on Brook Avenue. 3. Show landscaping as required by the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Show location of vacuums. 5. Direct all lighting away from residential areas. 6. Provide a six -foot privacy fence along the south boundary. (Check with Planning Office so that the fence does not create a traffic hazard.) 7. This use shall not be operated in a manner that would result in a nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood. Complaints by neighboring property owners concerning traffic, noise or lighting shall be considered in determining the existence of a nuisance. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request with the above referenced conditions. Ms. Purtle made a motion to approve this request. Ms. Phillips seconded. Planning & Zoning Commission August 11, 1999 Page 12 Six surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One (1) or 16.67% replied in favor and one (1) or 16.67% was opposed. Mr. Seese suggested that item #5. Include directing all lighting away from right -of -ways. The car wash request passed with a unanimous vote in favor 6. Request for Carport 3908 Hooper Case C 99 -23 Mr. Sons made a motion to approve the carport. Mr. Richardson seconded the motion. Twenty -one surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Five (5) or 23..81 % replied in favor and none (0) were opposed. Mr. Guy Grogan, neighbor of the applicant, gave a brief explanation for reasons to install the carport. He encouraged the Commission to vote positively for this request. Ten votes in favor unanimously approved this request 7. Request for Carport 1400 Redbud Lane Case C 99 -24 Mr. Sons made a motion to approve this request. Mr. Richardson seconded the motion. Twenty -three surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Four (4) or 17.39% replied in favor and none (0) were opposed. Mr. Seese reminded the Commission that they must determine if rear access to the property is possible. If not, the carport request cannot be granted. Mr. Jesus Quintana, applicant, stated he built the carport about six weeks prior. Mr. Seese asked Mr. Quintana is there were cars parked in the backyard. Mr. Quintana replied there were repossessed cars. Mr. Seese stated then there was access to the rear of his property. Chairman Rhone agreed with Mr. Seese that there was access to backyard. There was discussion regarding the options available to the applicant. The vote was none (0) in favor and ten (10) opposed. The carport was not approved. VI. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Discussion and Recommendation on Changes to General Commercial Zoning. Mr. Chuck Dennis, of The Dennis Company, opposed the changes by stating they would cause economic loss to General Commercial property owners regarding the development of their land. He further commented that zoning works best when there are broad categories of permitted uses which address private property rights. Zoning can become a hindrance to economic growth when there are more uses requiring the conditional use process. He recommends to the Commission that these changes not be adopted. Planning & Zoning Commission August 11, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Seese stated that the purpose of the changes is to prevent more regulations and have the Commission mitigate property uses. Zoning was not created to put requirements on the land owner but identify how the land uses would effect others. He commented that this process will keep the number of zoning districts down, not increase the number. Chairman Rhone stated he had questions and concern about these changes. It was agreed by all to have a workshop for further discussion about these changes. 2. City Council Update Mr. Seese stated that Council voted in favor of the off - street parking, loading, and curb cut regulations as well as approving the change of Heavy Commercial zoning to Light Industrial. VII. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. i Rhone, Chairman ATTEST: Steve ing Administrator Planning & Zoning Commission August 11, 1999 Page 14 ci - iU -S 5 Date Date