Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 09/09/1998MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION September 9, 1998 PRESENT: Joe Johnson, Chairman ♦ Members W. O. Franklin Marie Morgan Lin Purtle David Rhone Danny Richardson Earl Rooks Randy Wachsman Greg Wright Johnny Burns ♦ Council Liaison David A. Clark, Director of Community Development ♦ City Staff Steve Seese, Planning Administrator Paul Stillson Marty Odom, Planner I ABSENT: None Alternate members Mr. Cliff Berg and Mr. Ernie Vicars were present but seated in the audience. I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Johnson at 2:00 p.m. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the audience wished to address the Commission. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the August 12, 1998 meeting. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote. IV. CONSENT AGENDA 1. 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. Planning & Zoning Commission AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.0 Page 1 of 20 ♦ 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. a. Windthorst Road Addition, Block 1, Lots 1 & 2 (September 1998) 1. Show right -of -way width and label "previously dedicated." 2. Label easements as "previously dedicated." 3. Provide detention. (PW /EN) 4. Served by water & sewer. (PW /EN) 5. Submit master drainage plan with off -site drainage information. Address how drainage to the north will be handled. (PW /EN) 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. Baggett -Lam Subdivision, Lots 1 -B & 1 -C (September 1998) 1. Provide signed copy. 2. Lots are located near Kickapoo Airport. Check with the Federal Aviator Authority for height restrictions prior to building. 3. Provide detention for any additional impervious area. (PW /EN) 4. Extend sanitary sewer to serve Lot 1 -B. (PW /EN) 5. Served by water. (PW /EN) b. Bollinger Addition, Block 1, Lot 1 (September 1998) 1. Provide utility slips. 2. Provide signed copy. 3. Provide detention. (PW /EN) 4. Provide curb and gutter for any frontage without curb and gutter. (PW /EN) 5. Served by water and sewer. (PW /EN) C. Kemp, Kell & Joline Addition, Block B, Lots 1 -A thru 5 -A (September 1998) 1. Provide signed copy. 2. Provide utility slips. 3. Label lots to the west either "platted" or " unplatted." Records show they are unplatted. Show owners' names on tracts. 4. Show building limit lines. 5. Give volume and page on alley closure. Show portion of closed alley. Label alley closure tract. 6. If seller of property of this tract is the same as for the west half of Lots 5 $6, then detention will be required. (PW /EN) 7. Provide sewer service to Lots 2 -A thru 4 -A. (PW /EN) 8. All lots served by water. (PW /EN) Planning & Zoning Commission Page 2 of 20 9. Ten foot utility easement from west line of Lot 5 -A to the south line of same lot where alley was closed. (TU ELECTRIC) d. Knights of Columbus Addition, Block 1, Lot 1 (September 1998) 1. Provide signed copy. 2. Correct street name to read "Turtle Creek Road." 3. Provide utility slips. 4. Correct plat title to read "Addition." 5. Give titles of owners. 6. Note: Lot is zoned Single Family -1. 7. Provide detention for all new improvements. (PW /EN) 8. Provide curb and gutter. (PW /EN) 9. Served by water. (PW /EN) 10. Not served by sewer. (PW /EN) 11. Lot not served by sewer. Must be approved for on -site sewage system. (HEALTH) e. Saturn Addition, Block 1, Lot 1 (September 1998) 1. Provide signed copy. 2. Provide utility slips. 3. Remove "herein vacated" from 50' drainage easement. No offsetting easement has been dedicated. 4. Show boundary of 100 year floodplain. Label "in" and "out." 5. Provide topographic survey on property extending to pavement on northeast, east and southeast side of property. Include drainage easement on southwest side and drainage structures along Holliday Creek side (extend to top of bank). (PW /EN) 6. Served by water and sewer. (PW /EN) f. Sikes Estates, Section 6, Unit 5, Block 6, Lots 2 & 3 (September 1998) 1. Provide signed copy. 2. Provide utility slips. 3. Show owner of western part of Lot 1 -A. If Senko Venture, revise plat to include all of Lot 1 -A. 4. Label centerline of easement being dedicated. Identify line as "easement centerline" so as not to be confused with a property line. 5. Provide detention. (PW /EN) 6. Provide curb and gutter. (PW /EN) 7. Extend sanitary sewer to serve Lot 3. (PW /EN) 8. Served by water. (PW /EN) g. University Park, Section A -1, Block 6, Lots 13 -C, 13 -D, 13 -E & 13 -F (September 1998) 1. Provide utility slips. 2. Provide signed copy. 3. Provide volume and page for private easement. 4. Label street "Bermuda Lane." 5. Provide detention. (PW /EN) 6. Provide 15' utility easement for 6" and 2" water line on Lots 13 -D & 13 -E. (PW /EN) 7. Served by water and sewer. (PW /EN) 8. Need 10' utility easement from south property line of Lot 13 -A. (PW /EN) h. Windthorst Road Addition, Block 1, Lot 1 (September 1998) 1. Provide utility slips. 2. Provide signed copy. 3. Identify property owners to the North and East. 4. Provide detention. (PW /EN) 5. Served by water and sewer. (PW /EN) 6. Ten foot easement along east and north property line required. (TU ELECTRIC) A motion was made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda was approved with a unanimous vote in favor. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 3 of 20 V. REGULAR AGENDA Preliminary Plat Wal -Mart Addition, Block 1, Lot 1 Applicant: Declared Purpose: Property Reference: Property Address: Plat Area: Dunaway Associates, Inc. 1501 Merrimac Circle, Suite 100 Fort Worth, TX 76107 Wal -Mart Store Lot 1, Block 1, Wal -Mart Addition 3200 Lawrence Road 26.22 acres Background Over the years a proposal has evolved to create an alternative street to facilitate east/west traffic between Kemp Street and McNiel Road. The alignment between Kell Freeway and Call Field Road was chosen due to the amount of undeveloped and under - developed land in the area. Portions of this land is either land- locked or does not have sufficient access conducive to development. Keith Street further fine -tuned the alignment as it is approximately the halfway point between Call Field Road and Kell Freeway. The term "Call Field Reliever" became synonymous with this scheme due to the traffic problems along Call Field Road, and the perception that the extension of Maplewood Boulevard might be a method of relieving the congestion while accomplishing development purposes. The City is participating with the State in adding additional capacity to Call Field Road between Lawrence Road and Kemp Boulevard. The development of large undeveloped and under - developed tracts between Kell, McNiel, Call Field and Kemp may create the need for additional capacity. The term "reliever" has been used by staff to recognize that this alternative street was not necessarily intended to remove traffic from Call Field, but to help ensure that traffic along Call Field did not become worse with increasing development in the area. However, it is logical to assume that, depending on destination and alignment, traffic may indeed choose to use this alternative. Should this occur, the Call Field Reliever could serve to lessen the potential for additional improvements to Call Field Road which would be very costly. The 1988 Thoroughfare Plan had proven to be deficient in addressing events that have transpired since its original development. A new plan was needed to address increasing development pressures and recognize possibilities and alternatives. The development of the Plan was also required as part of the requirement to continue receiving State and Federal assistance under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and subsequently the newly- authorized Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21). By Ordinance No. 37 -96 passed on March 5, 1996, the City Council adopted an update to the Thoroughfare Plan. The Thoroughfare Plan, an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, is intended to address the functional classification of street and roads within the City. When platting occurs, and a street is deficient from the requirements of the Thoroughfare Plan, then a dedication of right -of -way is required via a plat. In addition, the Plan responds to long -term probable development patterns and recognizes infrastructure deficiencies. As part of the Plan, a 90 foot wide arterial street was identified with its connection to Maplewood Avenue. The alignment between Maplewood and ultimately McNiel follows a logical course by considering length, right -of -way cost and availability, recognition of large undeveloped, under - developed and land- locked tracts, cost to cross a drainage channel and other considerations. Maplewood Boulevard is a four -lane, mostly- divided arterial which intersects with Kemp Boulevard, a six - lane divided arterial. From that point westward Maplewood Boulevard becomes Avenue Z, a 60 foot wide right -of -way. Continuing west, Avenue Z terminates at the aforementioned undeveloped tracts, including City -owned TESCO Park. The most direct route was to use an alignment with Keith Street, which would also help to preserve the undeveloped and under - developed tracts in the most desirable configuration for Planning & Zoning Commission Page 4 of 20 development. Subsequently, a plat dedication by Preston Dairies on Keith Street included a 90 foot wide dedication on a replatted portion of property for their expansion. While the Thoroughfare Plan specifically identifies Keith Street as an interception point, the Plan recognized that getting to that point was flexible based on topography and other considerations. For instance, the choice as to whether to use South Regent or North Regent as the Maplewood Extension proceeds west from Lawrence remains an option depending on topography and other considerations, and as will be determined by an alignment feasibility study. By Ordinance No. 6 -98 passed on January 20, 1998, the City Council committed $115,000, a 20 percent match to an overall study cost of approximately $600,000, for a consultant retained by the State, to conduct a feasibility alignment study of alternatives involving the extension of Maplewood Avenue, also called the Call Field Reliever. While many questioned the need for the City to spend this money, which in their own mind was a logical need without the study, the match and consequent study would be required if the City was to gain the participation of State and Federal funds to construct the $3.3 million extension. The study is a route feasibility study of alternatives. With looming environmental concern possibilities, the study is a reasonable and rational approach to ensure that as many concerns were addressed as possible prior to committing construction funding. For example, should the alignment meet with nesting areas of threatened or endangered species, as happened during the construction of Kell Freeway, a sometimes costly mitigation plan would be required. By Ordinance 2118 passed September 28, 1964, the City adopted rules related to platting. This Ordinance, the Comprehensive Subdivision Ordinance, is found under Appendix A of the Code of Ordinances. Since its adoption, there have been revisions and amendments to not only stay in conformance with state law, which itself is subject to periodic amendments, but also to serve as a guide for development. These regulations recognize the elements that need to be addressed by a developing city, and that the absence of such results in higher cost to taxpayers, illogical development patterns and decreased opportunities for the citizens and developers. Staff Analysis After reviewing the preliminary plat, staff offers the following comments: Does not conform to the adopted Thoroughfare Plan as required under Section 9.B.1.(a) Comprehensive Subdivision Regulations. The Thoroughfare Plan specifies the alignment to use Keith Street. 2. Does not consider relationship to existing or planned streets, the appropriate relation to the proposed uses of land to be served by such streets, and is not devised for the most advantageous development of the entire neighborhood development as required under Section 9.B.1.(a) Comprehensive Subdivision Regulations. The proposal does not consider the relationship of Keith Street with Call Field Road and Kell Freeway as the alignment which would best preserve large vacant tracts in a configuration most suitable to development. The proposal would create an alignment which would bisect large tracts into a configuration less desirable for development. The plat as submitted shows the street to be developed on property not owned or under the control of the developer, and in an alignment likely requiring increased acquisition cost by the City or a developer. Such potentially higher cost would likely decrease the ability of the City to participate in further activities related to the Maplewood Extension. In addition, development cost associated with the proposed alignment could make these tracts less desirable. Does not relate to adjoining street system where such is necessary to the neighborhood pattern, existing principal streets in adjoining areas and in alignment therewith, as required under Section 9.B.1.(b) Comprehensive Subdivision Regulations. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 5 of 20 The applicant's proposed alignment is the most costly if the City was to extend the applicant's proposal to continue to connect with Maplewood Avenue. Such an alignment, with its increased cost and lessened long -term benefits, may forego any further City participation in such extension. The alignment chosen by the applicant serves their single purpose, and does not address considerations of the area for future development. 4. Does not provide for the proper projection of streets into unsubdivided areas as required under Section 9.B.1.(c) Comprehensive Subdivision Regulations. Retail /commercial development along Kemp, Lawrence (and McNiel), Call Field and the Kell Freeway frontage has created a "donut" effect in that these developments have ringed large, mostly vacant and unsubdivided tracts of land perhaps appropriate to large -scale retail /commercial development. The applicants proposal would create a tract configuration less conducive to this type of development without an interior street system. These interior streets, while possibly being required eventually, would lessen the desirability of the large tracts and heighten development cost. This heightened cost and lessened desirability of the tracts would greatly influence the City's cost to participate in either economic development incentives or the further extension of Maplewood Boulevard. This would thereby create increased taxpayer burden and lessened opportunities for development. 5. The plat does not demonstrate the suitability for platting as required under Section 6 E. Comprehensive Subdivision Regulations. Wetlands have been identified by the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers on property included in this preliminary plat. Properties adjacent to the channel, proposed by the applicant to be covered, are subject to flooding. That is, the floodway, as identified on the latest FIRM maps, exceeds the capacity of the existing channel. The covering of this channel would lessen the City's ability to respond to future increased upstream runoff without dramatically increased cost. To demonstrate the suitability of the tract for platting, a fully developed site plan needs to be evaluated by the City and Corp. of Engineers. This site plan should consider present hydraulics; runoff associated with the proposed development, and the influence of runoff to the channel in conformance with Land Use Plan possibilities. A large portion of this land proposed for platting is located within the 100 year flood plain, including those areas identified by the Corp. of Engineers as wetlands. 6. Chapter 212.010 of the Texas Local Government Code states: "... the municipal authority responsible for approving plats shall approve a plat if: (1) it conforms to the general plan of the municipality and its current and future streets, alleys, parks, playgrounds, and public utility facilities; (2) it conforms to the general plan for the extension of the municipality and its roads, streets, and public highways within the municipality and in its extraterritorial jurisdiction ..." This plat does not conform to the Thoroughfare Plan, an element to the Comprehensive Plan (general plan) of the City. Staff feels that the applicants chosen location for this development, since it would no longer front onto Kell Freeway, is in response to its proximity with competing businesses. While competition is healthy for an economy, and the consumer benefits from such competition, the City nor its boards and commissions have and cannot participate in a proposal which would lessen the City's ability to maximize development potentials in the area under evaluation, which ultimately reflects on the welfare of the entire City. In participating with the State in a project as the extension of Maplewood Boulevard, the City is responsible for right -of -way acquisition, curb and gutter, sidewalks, utility relocation and as much Planning & Zoning Commission Page 6 of 20 as 20 percent of construction cost. Should the City participate in the Maplewood Extension project, the need to recover its cost in as short a period as possible becomes very apparent. Therefore, creating an environment for heightened development opportunities helps to ensure that cost recovery is in as short a period as possible, and that an increasing tax base provides greater opportunity for the City to maintain its already low ad valorem rate. Since a study is currently underway by the consultant retained by TxDOT to consider alignment feasibility and alternatives, along with construction feasibility, it would not be in the best interest for the future of the City, nor future development possibilities, to approve this plat without first studying the consultants recommendations. According to the consultant, the study is expected to be complete around the first part of March. Requirements For Approval In addition to the issues discussed herein, the following is to be addressed prior to approval of the Preliminary Plat: 1. Show 25 foot building limit line measured from the edge of the 50' TxDOT easement along Lawrence Road. 2. Dedicate TxDOT easement as street right -of -way for widening of Lawrence Road in compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan. 3. Submit paving and drainage plans for the widening of Lawrence Road including the relocation of transmission towers and lines. 4. Comply with Wichita Falls Thoroughfare Plan (minor arterial) by dedicating a 90 foot right -of -way intersecting Keith Street. Submit paving and drainage plans. (PW /EN) 5. Show 25 foot building limit line along Kell Blvd. 6. Show streets closed by Ordinance 62 -87, located within the area being platted. 7. Label existing right -of -way along Lawrence Road as "previously dedicated." 8. Show width of Lawrence Road north of proposed Lot 1 as 70' wide. 9. Delete railroad property from dedication. 10. Delete McGrath Tributary "A" from dedication. 11. Show City of Wichita Falls as the owner of McGrath Tributary N' and indicate ownership under DR Vol. 1425, Page 377. 12. Show boundary of floodway on plat. 13. Label proposed easements as "herein dedicated." 14. Provide detention. (PW /EN) 15. Remove proposed Maplewood Avenue and "Herein Dedicated" from plat. (PW /EN) 16. Consider making the connection to Kell Blvd. a dedicated street. (PW /EN) 17. Provide 15' utility easements for existing utility lines crossing subject property. (PW /EN) 18. Provide Lot and Block numbers consistent with this property being located within the Burlington - Callfield Addition. Indicate same on the plat. Determination This plat submitted by the applicant should be disapproved in compliance with: Chapter 212.002, Texas Local Government Code which requires plats to be in conformance with rules adopted by the governing body of a municipality. These rules adopted by the governing body of the City of Wichita Falls are found in Appendix A of the Code of Ordinances, generally referred to as the Comprehensive Subdivision Ordinance, which is described by Ordinance No. 2118 dated September 28, 1964. 2. Chapter 212.010 (a) (1), Texas Local Government Code which requires the plat to conform to the general plan of the municipality. The plat is not in conformance with the general plan. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 7 of 20 3. Chapter 212.004 which requires that the owner of a tract of land be the one to, or at least agree to, plat a property. The applicant is proposing to plat land not owned by the applicant or agreed -to by other property owners associated with this plat. Approval of this plat will be in violation of laws of the State of Texas, and in violation of Ordinances adopted by the City of Wichita Falls for its health, safety and general welfare. A motion was made and seconded to approve this plat. Mr. Seese explained that staff withdrew this plat from the consent agenda to address several issues of concern. He stated the plat is not in conformance with the Thoroughfare Plan and elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The plat also shows dedication of right -of -way which is not noted on the field notes nor is this property owned by the applicant. Mr. Seese relinquished the floor to the applicant for his presentation. Mr. Tom Galbreath of Dunaway Associates, Inc., representative for the Wal -Mart Stores, Inc. stated this proposed Wal -Mart Super Center is the largest super center store they currently have. The current store is 120,000 square feet selling general merchandise; proposed is a 224,000 square foot store selling general merchandise and groceries which would be double the size of the current store as well as double the employment and double the tax revenue from sales tax. Mr. Galbreath stated that the staff report contains statements: 1. That the proposal does not consider the Maplewood alignment which would preserve large vacant tracts for further development; 2. That the proposal would create an alignment that would bisect large tracts making them less desirable for development; and, 3. That the developer has acted selfishly (a term not used by staff) and for their benefit only in proposing another alignment and it does not address further development. He then commented that he would disprove those statements and show those same criticisms for staffs proposal. He complimented staff by saying they have been very courteous and they are simply expressing their opinions, with which he stated he disagreed. Mr. Galbreath gave a history of the proposed layout by starting with the original site plan that was created in February and continuing with each site plan thereafter and the reasons for changing them. He stated that after identifying wetlands on the proposed site, they met with the Corps of Engineers. He commented that the geometry was not there (in any of their plans) to permit the extension of Keith Street through this property. Mr. Galbreath remarked that to honor the Thoroughfare Plan, the Sam's Wholesale building would have to be removed. Mr. Galbreath continued by stating that on April 22, he met with Mr. Jim Berzina, Mr. David Clark, and Mr. George Bonnett. He explained the problem with complying with the Thoroughfare Plan. The City informed him the Plan must be recognized and to submit a preliminary plat. He further stated that the new proposal shows the street extension on the abandoned railroad tracks, which is property currently not owned by Wal -Mart. He commented that this was a beginning point, somewhere to start. At the June 12`" public hearing (sponsored by Texas Dept. of Transportation), Kimley -Horn, consultants, received comments on the street extension from the general public. Mr. Galbreath presented a site plan of the development superimposed on an aerial map as a matter of courtesy to the consultants to indicate that the alignment shown on the Thoroughfare Plan will not be compatible with their proposal. Mr. Galbreath discussed both alignments, the Thoroughfare Plan's and the contrasting plan from Wal- Mart. To begin his presentation, he explained that flood plain areas could be developed by filling up to the Planning & Zoning Commission Page 8 of 20 floodway limit, raising the 100 year flood no greater than one foot. The land can be developed if the FEMA regulations are met. He cited both the positives and negatives of the Keith Street extension. Mr. Galbreath presented his development and explained overcoming the obstacles of the abandoned railroad tracks as well as the area designated in the floodway. After meeting with the Corps of Engineers and modeling the HEC 2 of this tributary, a preliminary solution appeared to be an enclosure below the street of four 6x10 boxes. He further commented it would be similar to the drainage improvements west of McNeil. Continuing, he commented by moving the street extension south there would be larger tracts of land available for commercial development, which would not be the case if the extension goes through the property. By permitting the Wal -Mart development, a signal is sent to the retail community for development in this area. Mr. Galbreath admitted that his proposal would cause the alignment to be more costly but the benefits would outweigh those costs in future development. He encouraged the Commission to listen to the market when making their decision regarding this plat. If Wal -Mart were to locate elsewhere, their current store would become vacant and there would be less excitement about the Lawrence Road area with skepticism concerning development. Chairman Johnson asked if Wal -Mart planned to purchase the railroad right -of -way since it was included in his proposal. Mr. Galbreath stated he did not have the liberty to commit that purchase. Chairman Johnson then inquired about covering the tributary with four 6x10 boxes and if that would restrict the flow of the water. Mr. Galbreath replied it should not restrict it if it is sized for 100 year conditions. It would enclose the floodway and Lawrence Street would have to be reviewed. Mr. Bobby Schaaf, representative of the owners of this property, stated the positives of Midwestern Parkway, retail area, underground utilities, MSU, Sikes Senter, the Museum, and compared Maplewood to it as another aesthetic area of the City. He also commented that Maplewood joins the two retail areas of the City, the mall and the box area (Wal -Mart, Lowe's, Sam's, and Circuit City). He further remarked that Wal -Mart is requesting to expand their business contiguous to their current location and a market they started. Both Sam's and Wal -Mart located on Kell Blvd. which was contrary to the commercial expansion taking place then on Southwest Parkway. When there is twenty -six acres available for their development, it is unfortunate they cannot continue operating in the same location. Mr. Schaaf described the various tracts around this area that could be developed commercially including the City's Transfer Station, if Wal- Mart locates at the proposed site. Mr. Schaaf then addressed the 1988 and the 1996 Thoroughfare Plans. He commented that the first Plan showed the street extension located south of the railroad tracks. After the Transfer Station located on Lawrence, the next Plan showed the extension north of the tracks. He emphasized that the Plan is a changeable document. In the last 40 years, the Thoroughfare Plan has been changed at least seven times. Mr. Schaaf again stressed that the Thoroughfare Plan is a document that is monitored and adjusted to meet the changes in the City. He commented that it is regretful to use that Plan as a reason to deny this plat. Mr. Schaaf commented that if the street extension, a new four -lane boulevard with underground utilities, is not relocated it would join two retail areas, the Mall and the box area, through two industrial areas. He also stated that when the juice manufacturing plant reopens there will be approximately 80 trucks daily using the new street. Mr. Schaaf commended Wal -Mart for revitalizing an old area of town. Chairman Johnson commented that it was pleasing that WaMart favored the City with opportunity of a Super Store. He further commented that the issue has evolved to being able to provide Wal -Mart with the answers concerning land use and development. Mr. Seese stated he appreciated Mr. Schaafs comments and Mr. Galbreath's presentation. He noted this was the first time a site plan has been presented, except for a visit from Wal -Mart. In response to Mr. Galbreath's remarks, Mr. Seese commented that he did not agree that sales tax would be doubled at the new location. He reasoned that there would be other economics involved with the area retailers and grocery stores. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 9 of 20 Mr. Seese stressed that Wal -Mart's proposal is not in accordance with the Thoroughfare Plan. He stated that the modifications Mr. Schaaf referred to were necessary for a changing community. This Plan and other City Plans cannot remain static but must change with growth. Mr. Seese commented on the location of the right -of -way on their plat and noted that it was labeled "Herein Dedicated." He also stated that Wal -Mart did not notify the City that the channel was to be used to construct the road.; the first indication being the submittal of this plat. Their proposal for the extension is to use the railroad tracks and a drainage tributary. Mr. Seese emphasized that there are numerous problems with the tributary. Their plan would greatly increase the City's cost because the extension forms a "T' into the Harris Nursery Land. Mr. Seese stated that Wal -Mart has made a large contribution to the retail corridor and the City is not opposed to Wal -Mart's future development in this area. This particular alignment has not been approved nor disapproved. The City has participated in a study by providing a match of funds with the State and Federal Highway Administration to determine alignment feasibilities. He stated the City needs the results of the study. Mr. Seese stated that Wal -Mart chose to not include the 90 foot right -of -way on their property which would be costly to the taxpayers. He further commented on build out possibilities but he was unsure which areas Mr. Galbreath considered. Upstream build out possibilities will increase usage, and eventually the cover will be required to be removed and redone with a burden being the taxpayers. Mr. Seese explained that the juice plant gave the City a 90 foot right -of -way when their property was replatted. The assumption that truck usage of the retail boulevard is not justified is opposite the feeling that the extension will get the trucks in and out of town in an expedient manner. Staff's position is to receive the study from the State then review it with developers, State officials, and City departments; making a decision prior to that time would be premature. Mr. Franklin inquired asked if additional right -of -way was required? He stated 250 feet was dedicated from the juice plant leaving 1,000 feet to be purchased. Mr. Seese concurred. Mr. Franklin asked Mr. Seese to expand on the fact that it would be more expensive to use the proposed street extension. Mr. Seese stated the applicant's alignment will form a "T' into an operating business, which would be more expensive than purchasing vacant land. The alignment staff proposed would bisect TESCO Park but it would still be an operable park. The applicant's proposal eliminates usage of part of the park by going through it at an angle. Other issues concern their proposed extension angling through properties. Mr. Franklin stated it seems vacant unused railroad tracks would be preferable to property that could be developed. Mr. Franklin inquired about the drainage system being able to accommodate potential upstream development. Mr. Seese responded that for the City to allow use of the drainage passage it would have to be engineered for ultimate capacity. This is a concern for City Council and Public Works. Chairman Johnson stated the Thoroughfare Plan has been used as the culprit for denial; he asked Mr. Seese how much flexibility the Plan has and if the City and Wal -Mart could reach an agreement on adjusting the Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Seese explained the difference between the 1988 and 1996 Plans are that the City recognized a definite problem in that area with the drainage canal and large tracts that would be bisected. He further stated there is flexibility and would like to wait until the study is received to review alternate possibilities. He stated the study would be received around the first of March but 60 days must be allowed for the review process by the State and the City. Mr. Seese stated again that there is no opposition to Wal -Mart at this location but there are too many concerns to address this issue (plat approval) presently. Mr. Seese reminded the Commission that, in the Plan, the dashed line indicates proposed streets; there is flexibility and potential. The applicant is responsible for reviewing all environmental concerns for all options considered. Chairman Johnson commented that from their comments it appears that Wal -Mart is not able to wait for the study. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 10 of 20 Mr. Seese stated that he felt this situation was clearly a case of putting the cart before the horse. He also stated that staff would oppose a recommendation to Council to modify the Thoroughfare Plan until the study has been received (and reviewed). Mr. Rooks asked if the study could be expedited or redesigned to release this area first. Mr. Seese replied unfavorably. Chairman Johnson then asked if the study would serve as a basis for matching funds for the reliever. Mr. Seese stated it would and then explained the funding process with the State. Mr. Clark stated that this Thoroughfare Plan was adopted by this Commission and City Council. He also mentioned several changes that had been discussed, such as cost for railroad, cost for City property, cost to purchase Harris Nursery, cost for the floodway engineering, etc. Mr. Clark posed the question of which party would be responsible for these costs. He stated it would be the taxpayer and this is the balance that the community must see as the cost of development. He also stated that this Commission is the final authority for approval of this plat; it is not presented to City Council. If this plat is approved, all discussion is terminated. If the plat is denied, there will be the opportunity for further discussions and negotiations. Mr. Michael Lam, Skyline Developer, stated that he owns property to the west of the proposed development. He concurs with the Wal -Mart proposal and is supportive of their actions. He further stated that if Wal -Mart is forced out of that area, development would regress. He asked the Commission to give Wal -Mart some options. He commented that staffs concern for the taxpayers did not reflect the fact that Wal -Mart and the retail community are large taxpayers. He asked the Commission to approve this plat instead of denying Wal -Mart's plat. Mr. Steve Protzman, Lowe's Co- Manager, stated that Wal -Mart is a good neighbor and draws outlying shoppers into the Kell /Lawrence area. He stated he supported Wal -Mart's proposal. Mr. Ben Woody, property owner in the area, stated that it would be a serious mistake to send Wal -Mart away. He felt this would be the best use of the railroad right -of -way. Mr. Woody stated he supported this proposal. Mr. Chuck Dennis of the Dennis Company gave the history of the Call Field Reliever from its inception. He stated that it made sense for alignment and for drainage purposes. He stated the Thoroughfare Plan was changed because of the Transfer Station and costs involved with relocation. He commented that the 1988 Thoroughfare Plan makes more sense from an economic and development standpoint. Mr. John Hirschi, speaking as a concerned citizen, stated property values should be a major consideration when looking at these plans. An extension of Keith Street would not have much impact on property values. The costs that staff is concerned about would be offset by the tremendous amount of acreage that would quickly be developed. He cited the Transfer Station as an example of property (when developed commercially) would increase in value by considerable number of dollars per square foot. The Wal -Mart store, which would be a $15 million investment, would create a sizable annual tax value and a return on the City's investment for the improvements. We have the opportunity to progress with major development creating tax value and relieving the Kemp /Call Field traffic situation. He stated he viewed this as a win -win situation for all concerned. Chairman Johnson inquired about environmental concerns that might surface. Mr. Hirschi stated that environmental studies should be conducted regardless of which direction is chosen. Mr. Seese stated projects, such as this, create the need for environmental studies. Mr. Wachsman asked Mr. Mark Good, traffic and thoroughfare consultant from Dallas, if the consultants preparing the study would have a problem with relocating the street extension as it is proposed on the Wal -Mart plat. Mr. Good replied that he could not tell the scope or tasks that would be produced from the study. The diversion would be almost inconsequential from a thoroughfare planning standpoint and would not have any adverse traffic impacts. Mr. Seese stated that traffic impacts were not an issue. Mr. Franklin stated that the Thoroughfare Plan is being given as the main objection to this plat by staff. He commented that, if the right -of -way situation were resolved, it should be apparent that the economic advantages of the proposed plat out weigh the existing street extension. Mr. Seese stated he felt that issue would be addressed by the study as well as other alignments and construction. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 11 of 20 Ms. Purtle asked if this plat were approved today, would the City still be eligible to receive the matching funds. Mr. Seese replied not necessarily, it would depend on the results of the study. Mr. Franklin stated he felt that if the proposed plat were approved, then the Thoroughfare Plan should be changed in order to accommodate that size of development. He also stated he would find it difficult to reject Wal -Mart. The economy changes too quickly to think that a development could be postponed by six months. He stated he hoped there was a way to satisfy staff's objections and the costs involved by the taxpayers. He reminded the Commission that there are other taxpayers involved besides the citizens. Mr. Clark stated that if this plat is approved today, it would preempt the study and any future negotiations. He commented that he has not heard the applicant declare that Wal -Mart would buy the right -of -way, build the trench, build the road, and revise the flood conditions. There are millions of dollars associated with these projects. Denial of this plat provides time for negotiations, it does not if approved. Mr. Galbreath stated that 50% of the road and the drainage along the property frontage would be assumed by Wal -Mart. In clarification, he stated it would be from Lawrence Road to the western extreme. He stated that he could not commit to buying the railroad right -of -way today. Chairman Johnson stated that another opposition by the City to the Wal -Mart plan was the enclosure of the floodway and asked what step could be taken. Mr. Galbreath stated that the model was not 100% complete, but the entire upstream area could be addressed at 100% runoff, sized the structure accordingly, and it would not require future improvements. Chairman Johnson explained that by denying the plat today, those topics could be addressed. Mr. Galbreath stated that he would prefer the plat be approved with subject to resolving certain conditions. Mr. Seese commented that was not an option; the plat would require by State law being approved or disapproved. Chairman Johnson asked if the conditions could apply to the final plat, not this preliminary plat so that it could be approved at this meeting. Mr. Seese stated that approving this plat would be premature when the right -of -way issue, the street construction, and the channel /floodway topic have not been resolved. He suggested bringing the plat back to this Commission next month. Chairman Johnson stated there are issues that cannot be resolved at this meeting; he would be in favor of denying the plat with further discussions and negotiations between the City and Wal -Mart. Mr. Galbreath agreed that some issues, such as the railroad, do need to be addressed. He suggested tabling the plat to resolve the issues, then presenting it to the Commission. Mr. Clark stated that under Texas law, the Commission has 30 days to approve or deny a plat. He further commented that the City agrees with the intent. The negative suggestion of denying this plat was discussed. Commission members stated they did not want to send a dissenting message to Wal -Mart. Mr. Galbreath stated that Mr. Schaaf agreed to purchase the railroad frontage based on the opportunity for this development. Chairman Johnson stated that this action leaves the drainage channel issue. Mr. Clark stated this action was appreciated; however, all the topics cannot be resolved at this meeting. Chairman Johnson stated that he was uncertain about the flexibility of conditions for a preliminary plat and when the final plat is submitted, this Commission would resolve that those conditions were met. Mr. Clark offered to have the City Legal Dept. review these suggestions. There was a brief recess. Then, Chairman Johnson stated that, while legal issues were being researched, the Commission would hear the next case. (For the sake of continuity, the minutes do not reflect that sequence of events.) Mr. Bill Sullivan, First Asst. City Attorney, stated that plats must be disapproved within 30 days. After that time period and without disapproval, the law states that the plat would automatically be approved. If the Wal -Mart plat is not disapproved in the next fifteen days, it would automatically be approved. Chairman Johnson then inquired if conditions could be placed on the preliminary plat before it becomes a final plat. Mr. Sullivan stated that he does not support conditional approval of plats because there has to be subsequent action. Conditions waiving ordinances are not a function of this Commission. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 12 of 20 Mr. Clark stated that the intent (of disapproval of this plat) is to provide a forum for additional discussion. If denied, the opportunity for negotiations are possible. Mr. Franklin inquired about withdrawal and resubmitting the plat. Mr. Clark stated that would be a consideration and there are no time penalties associated with that procedure. Chairman Johnson noted that, with topics left unresolved, he would deny this plat since it cannot be tabled. Councilor Burns stated that from his point of view he would like this development to be resolved. From a Council perspective, he supports this kind of project if it can be accomplished at a reasonable dollar figure. He needs a finite number to consider. The Council will address drainage and other issues related to this development but overall costs are critical. Mr. Richardson stated there were too many issues to be resolved and indicated he would not be in favor of approving this plat. Mr. Rooks complimented Mr. Galbreath on his presentation. He said he would not approve this plat. Ms. Morgan stated she could not vote either way without knowing the costs involved. Ms. Purtle agreed with Ms. Morgan. Mr. Wachsman stated that he favored the Wal -Mart layout more than the Thoroughfare Plan for that area. He commented that he doubted there would be much difference in the costs and expenses to the taxpayers between the Wal -Mart proposal and if they were to comply with the Thoroughfare Plan. He stated he would be in favor of the plat. Mr. Wright stated that he agreed with Mr. Wachsman. He commented that reclaiming the floodway would benefit the City with 40 -45 developable acres. If Wal -Mart does not locate there, he mentioned those tracts probably would not sell as quickly. He stated he would be in favor of the plat. Mr. Rhone commented that he would be in favor of this plat. Mr. Franklin stated that capital improvement have been delayed too long in this city. This is an opportunity to create a dynamic commercial development if we (the City) can spend the money. It is a chance when the economy is right for the City to act on this and have a development in which we could be proud. He stated he would be in favor of this development even if it costs us. Mr. Galbreath stated there is limited urgency within Wal -Mart to comply with their scheduling and to complete this project. Waiting for the study to be issued is not a consideration. While Wal -Mart would benefit from the street extension, it is not a requirement for them to have the street. He commented that to place the burden of this street placed on Wal -Mart to master plan the City for the costs. There are always hidden costs to which Wal -Mart would not have knowledge. He commented that they will work with staff and assist in any way but the costs should come from the City. Councilor Burns agreed with Mr. Galbreath. He suggested meeting with staff to share information. He feels this project will be a positive benefit to the City. Mr. Galbreath requested the plat be withdrawn. He commented that there would not be time to wait for the study. 2. Application to Rezone 1500 & 1512 Eastside Drive From Single Family -2 to General Commercial Case R 98 -19 Planning & Zoning Commission Page 13 of 20 Applicant: Requested action: Purpose: Property: Existing Land Use: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Hawkins Industrial Resource Co. Rezone from Single Family -2 and Residential Mixed Use to General Commercial Relocation of a Manufacturing Business. 4.19 Acres Block 1, Abst. 299, and Lot 12 -A, Block 3, Scurry Vacant lot and Vacant commercial building. N: Residences, SF -2 S: Eastside Dr., HC E: Vacant Land, Residence, RMU W: Residences, SF -2 Analysis: This proposed rezoning consist of two lots on Eastside Dr. The smaller lot to the east contains a vacant commercial building. This building was last used by Ultra Tech Inc. Industry Ice Makers. It has remained vacant since 1992. The larger lot to the west (4.19 acres) contains various items of outdoor storage. The applicant is proposing to relocate a manufacturing business to this site. The current operation is located at 901 Turtle Creek Rd. Staff has reviewed their operation and has classified this business as light manufacturing. Light manufacturing requires a conditional use permit in General Commercial. The applicant is also applying for a conditional use permit (see case C 98 -38). Recommendation: Due to the close proximity of this site to existing residences, staff recommends a Conditioned General Commercial zoning with permitted and conditional uses as shown on the following page. Thirty surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Four (4) or 12.28% replied in favor and six (6) or 12.59% were opposed. These 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 100 feet of the perimeter of this plat. Ms. Morgan made a motion to recommend approval of this rezoning case to City Council. Mr. Rhone seconded the motion. The negative comments were reviewed by Mr. Seese and it was felt that some of them applied more to the Conditional Use Permit case than this rezoning. Mr. Darryl Hawkins, applicant, stated his business growth has caused him to look for larger accommodations. He explained that his business manufactures seals out of rubber and rubber materials. There is no mixing of rubber in his operation. He showed the Commission samples of his products. Rubber is the only chemical in an open container. The solid rubber is milled then formed. There are no toxic pollutants released. At this time, there will only be two trucks a week servicing this business. Presently, he has three employees but that would double if this rezoning and conditional use are approved. Chairman Johnson inquired about noise and noxious fumes. Mr. D. Hawkins replied that his business machinery included hydraulic pumps and mills in this metal building. He stated that he anticipated insulating the building for the noise. Mr. D. Hawkins stated no toxic or noxious fumes are emitted from his operation. There is some smell which can be detected at close range. Chairman Johnson asked if the building that abuts Scurry, at the end of the residential block, would have the manufacturing process in it. Mr. D. Hawkins replied that storage of molds and tools would be in that location with the manufacturing in the larger portion of the building. Mr. Seese reminded the Commission that the applicant applied for General Commercial zoning but the recommendation from staff is Conditioned General Commercial to be more compatible with the neighborhood. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 14 of 20 Ms. Joyce Williams, 111 Scurry, stated she was opposed to this business locating in the neighborhood for health reasons. Ms. Earline White stated that she goes to church on Scurry Street. She expressed her opposition to the location of this business in a residential environment citing her concerns as preservation of the neighborhood environment and health reasons of the residents. Ms. Brenda Jarrett, P.E.O.P.L.E. Weed and Seed Director, stated that she understood and was sympathetic to the concerns of the neighborhood. She stated that businesses are needed in Wichita Falls East for survival of the community. She encouraged Mr. D. Hawkins and other businesses to locate in that area. Mr. Harold Hawkins asked the Commission to consider this request positively in order to make the east side a viable part of the City and paying their own way. Having retail stores there is not enough; businesses with employees are much needed. He asked the Commission to vote in favor of the rezoning. Chairman Johnson inquired about filters, silencers, and types of exhaust. Mr. D. Hawkins stated there are no EPA mandates governing the exhaust produced by his business. He reiterated that insulation would be installed and, if necessary, baffeling could be used. He stressed that he wanted to be a good neighbor. Mr. Rooks asked Mr. D. Hawkins to explain the process for making the molds. He gave a brief description by stating heat is used to mold the rubber. He stated there is some odor involved, but repeated there are no regulations enforcing the removal of these odors. He again stressed that he wanted to be a good neighbor and a silent neighbor, where the residents do not realize a business is located in the area. Ms. Williams and Ms. White again expressed their disapproval of this business. A vote was taken with zero in favor and zero opposed. It was decided there should be more discussion about this case. Mr. Franklin stated he toured the area and noticed the building is quite close to a residence. He stated that he has a problem with the type of zoning which he feels is too radical a change from Single Family. Mr. Rooks stated that the level of opposition should also be considered. He commented that since the applicant does not own the property and based on the opposition from the neighborhood, he would not be in favor of this rezoning. Ms. Purtle remarked that she understood the residents concern but, at the same time, she felt business ventures on the East Side are needed. She commented that she was uncertain of her vote. Mr. Wright stated that the alternative is a vacant metal building located in a residential environment that will probably remain vacant. The lesser of the two would be to approve this business, since it is of an unobtrusive nature. Mr. Franklin stated that he did not agree with a manufacturing business in a residential setting. Mr. H. Hawkins informed the Commission that the building was originally designed to manufacture drilling rigs. Chairman Johnson asked if the building were to expand would Mr. D. Hawkins require this Commission's approval. Mr. Seese stated that was correct. Mr. Wachsman stated that he would be in favor of approving this rezoning case. Mr. Rhone commented that he was sympathetic to the neighborhood but emotions should not play a factor. He stated that he would vote in favor. Ms. Morgan stated she was opposed. The vote was six (6) in favor and three (3) opposed. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 15 of 20 3. Application for Light Manufacturing Business 1500 & 1512 Eastside Drive General Commercial Zone Case C 98 -38 Applicant: Hawkins Industrial Resource Co. Requested action: Conditional Use for Light Manufacturing in Conditioned General Commercial. Purpose: Relocation of a Manufacturing Business. Property: 4.19 Acres Block 1, Abst. 299, and Lot 12-A, Block 3, Scurry Existing Land Use: Vacant lot and Vacant commercial building. Surrounding land Use and Zoning: N: Residences, SF -2 S: Eastside Dr., HC E: Vacant Land, Residence, RMU W: Residences, SF -2 Analysis: This case is contingent upon the approval of case R 98 -19. The applicant is proposing to relocate a manufacturing business to this site. The current operation is located at 901 Turtle Creek Rd. The applicant's company manufactures rubber gaskets for mechanical products. This operation has eight employees with two shifts. The proposed building was last used by Ultra Tech Inc. Industry Ice Makers. It has remained vacant since 1992. Staff has reviewed this operation and has classified it as light manufacturing. Light manufacturing requires a conditional use permit in General Commercial and Conditioned General Commercial. Developmental Requirements: 1. Provide a site plan showing that this site will meet landscaping requirements 2. Attenuate building for 65db -70db noise contour. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request. Thirty surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Two (2) or 6.67% replied in favor and seven (7) or 23.33% were opposed. Mr. Clark stated that if this case is approved it would be subject to City Council's approval of the rezoning. Mr. Rhone made a motion to approve this Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Wachsman seconded the motion. The vote was eight (8) in favor and one (1) opposed. 4. Application to Rezone 2518 & 2522 Old Iowa Park Road and 1108 & 1200 Kenley Lane From Single Family -2 and Residential Mixed Use to General Commercial Case R 98 -21 Applicant: Ron Childress for Graco Real Estate Development, Inc. Property Owners: Gordon Peterson, N. C. Patel, Foye A. Sandefur, and Heip H. Dinh Requested Action: Rezoning from SF -2 & RMU to GC Purpose: Proposed supermarket Property: 2518 & 2522 Old Iowa Park Road and 1108 & 1200 Kenley Lane, 4.87 acres in all. Legal Description: The west one -half of Block 23 & all of Blocks 17, 24, 25 & 26 and Lot D, Block 27, Ed Woodall Subdivision No. Two. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 16 of 20 Existing Land Use: Vacant, RMU Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: N: Residential, SF -2 S: Iowa Park Road, RR tracts, RMU E: Residences, Vacant, RMU W: Used Cars, Vacant, Residences, GC, SF -2 Analysis: The applicants request rezoning of their properties to General Commercial to facilitate the development of the site for a planned supermarket. The tract is bounded by Old Iowa Park Road on the South, and Kenley Avenue on the West. All tracts fronting on Iowa Park Road are zoned RMU. With RMU zoning, a supermarket could be approved as a Conditional Use. The two tracts fronting Kenley are zoned Single Family; that zoning would not allow a supermarket. All four property owners are requesting General Commercial zoning, a zone that would allow a supermarket as a permitted use. This request would increase the non - residential zoning farther north along Kenley Avenue by rezoning two tracts from Single Family. However, the tract as a whole will have frontage on Iowa Park Road. Because of the frontage, structures and activities will most likely be oriented towards Iowa Park Road rather than the more residential portions of Kenley. A six -foot tall wood or masonry privacy fence will be required along the north border of this tract. Buffering regulations will require a minimum 30 foot setback of any structures from that north line. Although a supermarket has been presented as a potential use, this rezoning does not guarantee or limit development to a particular project. Any use listed in the General Commercial district can be placed on this site. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this rezoning. Mr. Rhone made a motion to recommend approval of this rezoning to City Council. Ms. Morgan seconded the motion. Twenty -seven surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Six (6) or 15.88% replied in favor, two (2) responses in favor were received from the applicant, and five (5) or 11.56% were opposed. These 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 stated that, due to comments opposed, he proposed to the applicant to substitute Conditioned General Commercial instead of the originally proposed General Commercial. All the commercial uses were moved to require conditional use approval. The only use remaining without prior approval is retail, which includes a grocery store. Staff recommends approval of this rezoning. Mr. Ron Childress, Graco Real Estate, stated he was aware of the opposition and he agrees that undesirable uses should be restricted and his use will be strictly retail. He inquired if gasoline sales would be permitted in the GC(c). Mr. Seese stated it would not be a problem (not auto service). Mr. Childress stated this proposed supermarket would be an enhancement to the neighborhood and requested that the Commission uphold staffs request to approve this request. Ms. Avis Roling, 1202 Kenley Lane, asked about the parking and the appearance of the building. Mr. Seese stated that a site plan has not been submitted but a privacy fence will separate this property from the residential area. Mr. Forest Sandefuhr, 1200 Kenley Lane, stated he was in favor of this development. The motion was approved with a unanimous vote in favor (for Conditioned General Commercial). Planning & Zoning Commission Page 17 of 20 5. Carport 2701 Boulder Drive Case C 98 -34 Mr. Franklin made a motion to approve this carport request. Mr. Wachsman seconded the motion. Thirty -one surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Seven (7) or 22.58% replied in favor and none (0) were opposed. The carport passed with a unanimous vote. 6. Application for a Personal Storage Building at 1426 35`h Street Case C 98 -35 Applicant: Curt Youngblood Requested action: Conditional Use Permit Purpose: Storage building Property: 142635 th St. Legal Description: Lot 21, Block 15, Hillcrest Addition Surrounding land Use and Zoning: N: Vacant Lot, Residences, RMU S: 35`h St., Body Shop, RMU E: Residence, RMU W: Residence, RMU Analysis: The applicant requests approval to construct a 40' x 60' storage building to store his personal antique vehicles and accessories. Non - residential uses require a conditional use permit within the Residential Mixed Use zoning district. This lot is currently vacant and is between two residences to the east and west. There is an auto body shop to the south across 35`h st. This area in general has a mixture of residences, commercial establishments and vacant lots. Developmental Requirements: 1. Provide irrigated landscaping. 2. Provide sidewalk. 3. Obtain all necessary building and curb cut permits. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request. Thirty -one surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Seven (7) or 22.58% replied in favor and none (0) were opposed. Ms. Morgan made a motion to approve this permit. Mr. Wachsman seconded the motion. Thirty -one surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Seven (7) or 22.58% replied in favor and none (0) were opposed. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 18 of 20 7. Carport 119 North Glencoe Circle Case C 98 -36 Applicant: Darrell W. Coulson Requested action: Conditional Use Permit Purpose: Carport in front setback Property address: 119 N. Glencoe Cr. Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 4, Section A, Loch Lomond Analysis: Carport size: 10' x 20' Distance to side property line: 20' Distance to front property line: 10.5' All- weather alley access ?: Yes Space on side for a carport?: No. Other carports in area ?: There is one property within 200 feet that has a carport within the 25 foot setback area. Note: Because of the paved alley, the Planning and Zoning Commission must first determine that rear access is not reasonably possible before granting the Conditional Use Permit. A Conditional Use Permit is valid for 1 year unless a building permit is issued and construction is ongoing. Note to applicant. If approved, a building permit will be required. Mr. Rhone made a motion to approve this carport. Ms. Morgan seconded the motion. Twenty -nine surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Seven (7) or 24.14% replied in favor and one (1) or 3.45% was opposed. The applicant, Mr. Darrell W. Coulson, stated there was an embankment in the alley making rear access impossible. Then, Mr. Coulson commented that it would be more expensive to construct an alley in the rear. Mr. Franklin remarked that he had driven down the alley earlier in the day and there was no embankment. Regarding the financial hardship of the rear location, Mr. Franklin stated that this Commission's charge is to determine if rear access to the property is possible. The vote was one (1) in favor and seven (7) opposed. The carport was denied. 9. Carport 3923 Hooper Drive Case C 98 -37 Mr. Rhone made a motion to approve this carport. Ms. Morgan seconded the motion. Twenty -eight surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Four (4) or 14.29% replied in favor and one (1) or 3.57% was opposed. The carport passed with a unanimous vote in favor. VI. OTHER BUSINESS 1. City Council Update Planning & Zoning Commission Page 19 of 20 Mr. Clark stated that all items were approved that were related . 2. Discussion of Items of Concern to Members of the P &Z Commission Councilor Burns stated that staff does not necessarily submit reasons why things cannot be approved but all the factors in making a decision. He reiterated that costs were an important part of a decision. Mr. Clark stated that Wal -Mart was specifically asked to produce costs and they did not comply. Mr. Seese stated that the City is budget oriented and cannot be forced into projects. Councilor Burns stated he was pleased with the results of the Wal -Mart case and did not think it sent a negative message. Councilor Burns congratulated the Commission on their decision. VII. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m. Joe Johnson, Chairman Date ATTEST: Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator Date Planning & Zoning Commission Page 20 of 20