Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 08/14/2013MINUTES
i,lh
r ? �_ -- �� /� /�/ PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
�
�v � - TIMES .`s `� August 14, 2013
PRESENT:
R. C. Taylor, Chairman ♦ Members
Jeff Browning •
Karla Miller Metty
Vicky Payne •
James Wingo •
Kinley Hegglund, Senior City Attorney ♦ Legal Depart.
James McKechnie, Assist. City Attorney
Kevin Hugman, Assistant City Manager ♦ City Staff
Monique Coleman, Planner II •
Leo Mantey, Planner I
Diane Parker •
ABSENT:
Mary Ward ♦ Council Liaison
John Harmon
John Kidwell
David Schmid •
Rick Graham ♦ Alternate #1
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Taylor at 2:00 p.m. Chairman Taylor then
proceeded to make the following comments:
a. This meeting is being broadcast live on Channel 11. It will be replayed at 2:00 p.m.
daily including Saturday and Sunday until the next live meeting is aired which will be the second
Wednesday of next month at 2:00 p.m.
b. Motions made by the Commission members include all staff recommendations and
developmental requirements listed in the staff report. Any deviations will be discussed on a
case -by -case basis and voted on accordingly.
c. Applicants and citizens who wish to address the Commission or answer questions
from the Commission members are asked to please speak into the microphone at the podium.
This meeting is being taped and there is no microphone to record statements made from the
audience.
d. Please silence all cell phones during the meeting. If it is necessary for you to have a
cell phone conversation, please use the hallway outside this room.
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 2 AUGUST 14, 2013
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one from the audience wished to address the Commission.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Metty made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 12, 2013 and July 10, 2013
meeting. Mr. Browning seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous
vote.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
Public Hearing on Preliminary Plat
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the following plat subject to the
Standard Conditions of Approval for Preliminary Plats and any specific conditions listed:
Standard Conditions of Approval for Preliminary Plat
Provide utility and drainage easements as required by utility companies and Director of
Public Works.
Submit water and sewer plans; street; sidewalk; and drainage plans to the Director of
Public Works and water plans to the Fire Marshall. Drainage plans must be complete
enough to include impact on surrounding property and include detention facilities as
required by Director of Public Works.
Coordinate street lighting plan and provide utility easements as required by the Director
of Traffic & Transportation.
Submit two (2) copies of corrected preliminary plat to Planning Division before final
platting.
Note: Approval of a plat does not imply approval of development of property in violation
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Stehlik & Baber Subdivision, Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block 9 [replat] (August 2013)
a. All access to state roadways shall be approved by TxDOT. (TxDOT)
b. Additional easements will be required pending a future final plat of the property
being submitted for review. (Oncor)
c. Indicate 10' right -of -way as "proposed to be dedicated" along Seymour Hwy. per
Section 4.3 H of the Subdivision and Development Regulations (S &DRs). (Planning)
d. Enlarge location map and indicate U.S. Hwy. 277 as U.S. Hwy. 82 -277 on the
location map. (Planning)
e. Show topographical contour lines on two (2) feet vertical intervals per Section 4.3 J
of the S &DRs. (Planning)
f. Show a 10' easement along the full length of the east property line as "proposed to
be dedicated" per Section 4.3 H of the S &DRs. (Planning)
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 3 AUGUST 14, 2013
g. Indicate the 5' easement along the common property line of Lot 1 -A, Block 9 as
"proposed to be dedicated" per Section 4.3 H of the S &DRs. (Planning)
h. Indicate the 10' easement along the frontage (Seymour Hwy) as "proposed to be
dedicated" per Section 4.3 H of the S &DRs. (Planning)
i. The site is served by public sewer and water. (Public Works)
j. Please add standard note acknowledging compliance with the Stormwater
Ordinance, Chapter 106, Article VIII. (Public Works)
k. 10' of additional right -of -way dedication will be required for Seymour Hwy. per the
Thoroughfare Plan. Also, provide a 10' utility easement beyond the additional right -
of -way dedication. (Public Works)
I. Please label /identify more contours for ease of reading contours. (Public Works)
m. Please verify acreage being replatted in the replat legal description. It would appear
that the site is currently 3 parcels, identified as an 8 acre parcel, a 1.01 acre parcel,
and a 2.4 acre parcel (by the County), totaling 11.41 acres. (Public Works /Planning)
n. Please show existing property lines as light dotted /dashed lines, and clarify
difference in acreages. (Public Works /Planning)
o. The site has numerous, hard to define (from aerial photo) natural drainage channels.
Please identify drainage channels and provide drainage easements of suitable width
to handle the 100 -year flood or provide channel improvements to existing channels
to reduce the width of needed easements. (Public Works)
p. Please locate and show existing power poles along the east property line to verify
whether or not a utility easement is required along the east property line. (Public
Works)
2. Public Hearing on Final Plats
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the following plat subject to the
Standard Conditions of Approval for Regular 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.
Stehlik & Baber Subdivision, Lot 2, Block 9 [ replat] (August 2013)
a. All access to state roadways shall be approved by TxDOT. (TxDOT)
b. Dedicate 7.5' utility easements along the east and west property lines and dedicate a
10' utility easement along the frontage /south property line. (Oncor)
c. Please show full lot (as indicated on the preliminary plat) on the location map.
(Planning)
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 4 AUGUST 14, 2013
d. Indicate the 5' utility easement as "proposed to be dedicated" on the preliminary plat
boundary (shown on this final plat) along the common property line for Lot 1 -A, Block
9. (Planning)
e. 10' right -of -way dedication required along Seymour Hwy. /U.S. Hwy. 82 -277
(Planning)
f. Provide utility slips. (Planning)
g. Please add standard note acknowledging compliance with the Stormwater
Ordinance, Chapter 106, Article VIII. (Public Works)
h. 10' of additional right -of -way dedication will be required for Seymour Hwy. per the
Thoroughfare Plan. Also, provide a 10' utility easement beyond the additional right -
of -way dedication. (Public Works)
i. Refer to comments on the preliminary plat regarding the request to locate drainage
channels and power poles for verification of necessary easements. (Public Works)
j. On the parcels to the east and west (Lot 1 -A, Block 8 and Lot 1 -A, Block 9) please
remove the 25' BLLs from the map. (Public Works)
3. Carports
Ms. Coleman asked the Commission to place carport Case 13 -29 on the Regular Agenda.
a. Case C 13 -27
Carport in the front setback
4419 McCrory Avenue
Mr. Joe Fino requested conditional use approval to construct a carport in the front setback at
his residence on McCrory Avenue. There are seven (7) properties within the 200 foot
notification area with carports in the front setback.
Twenty (20) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Two (2) 10.0% replied in
favor; none (0) were opposed; and, one (1) or 5.0% responded as undecided /other.
b. Case C 13 -28
Carport in the Front Setback
120634 th Street
Mr. Bobby Patterson request conditional use approval to construct a carport in the front setback
in addition to a cover for the existing porch and ramp at his residence on 34th Street. There are
four (4) properties within the 200 foot notification area with carports in the front setback.
Thirty -two (32) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One (1) or 3.13%
replied in favor and none (0) were opposed.
c. Case C -13 -30
Carport in the front setback
1615 Gunnison Drive
Mr. Bobby Rowland requested conditional use approval to construct a carport in the front
setback for his client who resides on Gunnison Drive. There are four (4) properties within the
200 foot notification area with carports in the front setback.
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 5 AUGUST 14, 2013
Twenty -six (26) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Five (5) or 19.23%
replied in favor; none (0) were opposed; and, one (1) or 3.85% responded as undecided /other.
Ms. Payne made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda; Mr. Browning seconded. The
motion carried.
Chairman Taylor stated the carports located on McCrory, 34th, and Gunnison were approved.
V. REGULAR AGENDA
a. Case C 13 -29
Carport in the front setback
4105 Pool Street
Mr. Jesse Barron requested conditional use approval for the carport he previously constructed
at his residence on Pool Street. There are no (0) properties within the 200 foot notification area
with carports in the front setback.
Fifteen (15) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. No (0) responses were
received in favor. One (1) or 6.67% negative response was received.
Mr. Barron stated he built the carport not knowing a building permit was required. This is the
first house he has owned. Ms. Coleman stated a building inspector issued a stop work order on
July 9th when he determined Mr. Barron did not receive conditional use approval for the carport.
Mr. Barron stated he got the building permit the next day then came to Planning to apply for a
conditional use permit. Ms. Metty asked him when the carport was constructed; Mr. Barron
stated it was built approximately two (2) months before this meeting. He explained he wanted
the carport to protect his vehicles and to shelter his baby from the weather.
Chairman Taylor asked if Mr. Barron's plans were approved by the City and if he met all the
building code requirements; Ms. Coleman replied affirmatively.
Mr. Wingo asked if there was alley access to his property. Mr. Barron replied there is an alley
but there is no driveway in the rear; the garage with the driveway is in the front of the house.
Ms. Metty stated the resident that was opposed stated in his response that he had applied for a
conditional use permit to construct a carport in the front of this house in the mid 1990's. His
request was denied and his carport is located in the rear of his property. She stated she did not
have a problem approving this case because the applicant did not know the construction
required a building permit but he took care of the problem immediately when it was brought to
his attention.
Ms. Metty made a motion to approve this carport request; Mr. Wingo seconded. The motion
carried.
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 6 AUGUST 14, 2013
b. Case C 13 -26
Carport in the exterior side setback
3600 Lesley Heights
Mr. Leroy Cowardin requested conditional use approval to construct a carport in the exterior
side setback at his Lesley Heights residence in Belair. There are no (0) properties within the
200 foot notification area with carports in the front or exterior side setback.
Twenty -seven (27) property owners were notified of this request. One (1) or 3.70% responded
in favor; four (4) or 14.81% responded opposed; and, one (1) or 3.70% responded as
undecided /no opinion.
Ms. Payne asked if carports are allowed in some neighborhoods [with conditional use approval
in the front setback], how can this Commission deny a carport in another neighborhood. Ms.
Coleman stated the Subdivision Regulations permit carports in the front, interior or exterior side
setback [with conditional use approval] but the decision, when there is neighborhood opposition,
is the responsibility of this Commission. Ms. Payne asked how many carports are in Belair; Ms.
Coleman explained only the 200 foot notification area for the case has existing carports
recorded. Ms. Payne commented one of the responses stated there were not any carports in
Belair.
Mr. John Sims, 4830 Big Bend, stated he lived across the street from the applicant. He asked
why they need a carport when the house has a two car garage. Mr. Cowardin explained they
own three vehicles and, like 50% of the residents in Wichita Falls, they do not use their garage
for parking cars. The applicant also stated he wanted the carport to protect the vehicles from
the weather. Mr. Sims stated he could put them in the garage; there are no carports on Big
Bend [applicant's house is at the corner of Big Bend and Lesley Heights]. Mr. Sims noted the
proposed carport would be within two feet of the Big Bend property line and, he felt, it would not
be atheistically pleasing thus affecting property values. Mr. Sims also mentioned the carport
would block the view on Big Bend. Ms. Metty noted it would not be a closed structure. A rear
carport was discussed with Mr. Cowardin explaining his lot does not have rear access to the
alley.
Mr. Browning inquired about the setback for carports from the property line; Ms. Coleman
replied a carport can built up to the property line in the exterior side and front setback. If the
carport abuts the alley property line, the requirement is one (1) foot off the property line. Mr.
Cowardin noted his carport will be three (3) feet from the property line and two (2) feet from the
inside line of the sidewalk.
Ms. Metty stated, with the swimming pool in the backyard combined with the minute alley
access, there is no other means of providing shelter for the vehicles. The same would apply to
houses on Big Bend because they have no alley access.
Mr. Browning asked about the minimum distance of a structure from the stop sign. Ms.
Coleman stated there cannot be an obstruction to the visibility triangle on a corner lot. Mr.
Cowardin's carport will be at least 15 feet and not in conflict.
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 7 AUGUST 14, 2013
Mr. Cowardin provided a description of the carport. It would be constructed of metal with brick
posts. Ms. Metty stated she felt this carport would be similar to having vehicles parked in the
driveway when considering the visibility of traffic going both ways [on Big Bend].
There was discussion regarding the possibility of declining property values attributed to the
carport. Chairman Taylor stated there is no city ordinance prohibiting construction of a carport.
Ms. Metty remarked the deed restrictions state carports are not prohibited. Chairman Taylor
noted if the applicant meets all city requirements, he has the right to build a carport.
Mr. Kinley stated the Planning and Zoning Commission has the power and authority to approve
or deny cases. The members are not obligated to vote in favor of this request. The Commission
should consider all the facts, including the neighborhood as a whole, when determining if a
carport would be appropriate. There is not an obligation on the P &Z Commission to approve a
carport.
Ms. Metty asked the applicant how many carports were in his neighborhood; Mr. Cowardin
replied there were three.
Ms. Payne stated, with this Texas heat, a carport is a helpful way to protect vehicles. There are
numerous carports in Wichita Falls.
Mr. Browning asked if there would be a paved or grassy driveway; Mr. Cowardin replied it was
paved and would accommodate three cars.
Ms. Metty stated she was in favor of this request. She felt the applicant had no other choice.
She commented it is difficult to see a neighborhood change but it's an asset to have a
homeowner who takes care of their property. Chairman Taylor agreed with Ms. Metty.
Ms. Metty made a motion to approve this carport; Mr. Wingo seconded. The vote was (4) in
favor and one (1) was opposed. The carport was not approved.
Mr. Wingo stated he was opposed to this carport because a satellite view of Belair showed all
the carports located in the backyards having access via the alleys. He further stated it is
important that all neighbors should be in agreement which is not the case here. He believes
Belair is not ready for front yard carports. Ms. Metty stated Mr. Cowardin does not have access
through his alley.
Mr. Sims stated he would like to withdraw his negative neighborhood response.
Ms. Coleman stated the applicant can appeal the Commission's decision through City Council.
Chairman Taylor stated the vote cannot be changed. Mr. Kinley also stated, once there is a
vote, it cannot be changed. He stated there must be five (5) votes in favor in order to approve a
case.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
City Council Update
Ms. Coleman stated the rezoning case for 2015 Jasper to General Commercial was approved
by City Council.
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 8 AUGUST 14, 2013
New Employee
Ms. Coleman introduced Leo Mantey, Planner I. Chairman Taylor welcomed him.
VII. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:37 p.m.
J
R. Taylor, Chairman
ATTEST:
man, - Dept. of Community Development
Date
11 -lb - - 3
Date