Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 07/09/2014 MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
July 9, 2014
PRESENT:
Karla Metty, Chairperson • Members
Johnny Combs •
John Kidwell, Assistant Chairperson •
Rodney Martin •
James Wingo •
Rick Graham •
Anthony Inman •Alternate#1
Dan Leslie •Alternate#2
Kinley Hegglund, Senior City Attorney •Legal Dept.
Bobby Teague, Asst. Director of Community Development •City Staff
Karen Gagne, Planning Administrator •
Rita Miller, Code Enforcement Administrator •
Alex Borrego, Code Enforcement Officer II •
Michael Morreno, Code Enforcement Officer I •
Leo Mantey, Planner I •
Eric Kozielski, Planning Technician •
Diane Parker •
Ben Hoover • Council Liaison
ABSENT:
Barney Brock •Members
Jeff Browning •
R. C. Taylor •
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Metty at 2:00 p.m. Chairperson Metty 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.
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 2 JULY 9,2014
d. Please silence all cell phone ringers during the meeting. If it is necessary for you to have a
cell phone conversation during the meeting, please use the hallway outside this room.
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one from the audience wished to address the Commission.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Wingo made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 11, 2014 meeting. Mr. Kidwell seconded the
motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
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.
Robinson Subdivision, Lots 1-6, Block 1 (June 2014)
a. Per Section 4.3 B of the Subdivision and Development Regulations, the subdivision name shall be
the largest lettering on the plat. (Planning)
b. Huntington Ln. is classified as a minor collector (60 ft. right-of-way) on the Thoroughfare Plan.
Please change right-of-way dedication shown as 25 ft. to 30 ft. (Planning/Public Works)
c. Indicate ALL right-of-way and easement dedications as "propose to be dedicated". Dedications
cannot be made on preliminary plats because they are not filed for public record. (Planning)
d. Please indicate the following statement on the plat in accordance with Section 5.3 B (6):
• ANNEXATION STATEMENT "The area indicated on this plat as outside of the City limits
of Wichita Falls on the date of approval of this plat is within the extraterritorial jurisdiction
of the City of Wichita Falls and subject to annexation." (Planning)
e. Show contours at 2 ft. intervals. (Planning)
f. Show a 10 ft. utility easement along the frontage of each lot (within the 25 ft. B.L.L. and beyond
the right-of-way dedication) and indicate the easement as "proposed to be dedicated."
(Planning/Public Works)
g. Per City Ordinance 84-99, the city limit line is 1000 ft. north of and parallel with the North right-of-
way line of Reilly Rd (1000 ft. north of Reilly Rd.). Please verify the city limit line, which is
traversing Lot 1 is in the proper location. The revision must be made on the preliminary plat as
well as the final plat for Lot 1, Block 1, Robinson Subdivision. (Planning/Public Works)
h. Show building footprints on the preliminary plat. It appears some structures are sitting atop
property lines. (Planning)
i. The site is not served by public sewer; approved on-site sewage disposal systems will be
required. (Public Works)
j. Lots 4, 5 and 6 are served by public water, however lots 1, 2 and 3 are not served, extension of an
8-in public water line up Huntington Ln. will be required. (Public Works)
k. Please add the standard note regarding compliance with the storm water ordinance:
• Compliance with the current Stormwater Detention Ordinance will be required on this
property before building permits will be issued".
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 3 JULY 9,2014
I. The dimension up Huntington Ln, "655.98" is not consistent with the dimensions shown on the
final plats for lots 1, 2 and 3, please check. (Public Works)
m. In the field notes, paragraph two, "for the Northwest corner....." should read "for the Southwest
corner ", please check. In paragraph three, sentence two, there is two of the word "of'. In
paragraph five, "the North line of Reilly Road " should read "the North right-of-way line of
Reilly Road ", please check. (Public Works)
n. Please show and identify corners of record, or other physical evidence used to establish boundary
per the Land Surveyor's Act. (Public Works)
o. Please label the individual parcel's acreages on the map. (Public Works)
REGULAR 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:
Standard Conditions of Approval for Final Plats
• 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.
Note: Approval of a plat does not imply approval of development of property in violation of the
Zoning Ordinance.
1. Robinson Subdivision, Lot 1, Block 1 (July 2014)
a. Per Section 4.3 B of the Subdivision and Development Regulations, the subdivision name shall be
the largest lettering on the plat. (Planning)
b. Per City Ordinance 84-99, the city limit line is 1000 ft. north of Reilly Rd. Please verify the city limit
line, which is traversing Lot 1 is in the proper location. If incorrect, the revision must be made on
the preliminary plat as well as the final plat for Lot 1, Block 1, Robinson Subdivision. (Planning)
c. Please show existing building footprints (even if there is a setback or BLL encroachment) and add
the following note: (Planning)
• The existing structure on this property was constructed prior to this plat, and is therefore
"Grandfathered" as a nonconforming use and will be subject to the provisions of Section
6100 of the Wichita Falls Zoning Ordinance.
d. Verify and label city limit line on the location map. (Planning)
e. Show and indicate the full width of the right-of-way for Huntington Lane. (Planning)
f. Please indicate the following statement on the plat in accordance with Section 5.3 B (6):
• ANNEXATION STATEMENT "The area indicated on this plat as outside of the City limits
of Wichita Falls on the date of approval of this plat is within the extraterritorial jurisdiction
of the City of Wichita Falls and subject to annexation." (Planning)
g. If the lot, in part or whole is outside city limits the Wichita County Judge must certify the plat.
Please provide the following statement and a signature block for the County Judge:
• This plat, "Lot 1, Block 1, Robinson Subdivision" has been submitted to and considered by
the Commissioners Court of Wichita County, Texas and is hereby approved. (Planning)
h. Provide utility slips. (Planning)
i. Dedicate a 10 ft. utility easement along the frontage of Huntington Ln. (beyond the right-of-way
within the 25 ft. B.L.L.) (Planning/Public Works)
j. Huntington Ln. is classified as a minor collector (60 ft. right-of-way) on the Thoroughfare Plan.
Please change right-of-way dedication shown as 25 ft. to 30 ft. (Planning/Public Works)
k. Please adjust the city limit line to its proper location; it is identified as being 1000 ft. north of and
parallel with the north right-of-way line of Reilly Rd. (Public Works/Planning)
I. The site is not served by public sewer; approved on-site sewage disposal system will be required.
(Public Works)
m. The site is not served by public water; extension of an 8-in. public water line up Huntington Ln. will
be required. (Public Works)
n. Please add the standard note regarding compliance with the storm water ordinance:
• Compliance with the current Stormwater Detention Ordinance will be required on this
property before building permits will be issued". (Public Works)
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 4 JULY 9,2014
o. In the field notes, paragraph three, and on the map the bearing call for Huntington Ln is 35",
preliminary plat shows 25", please check. In paragraph four, and on the map the bearing call for
the North line is 33", preliminary plat shows 37", please check. On the map, a bearing call up
Huntington Ln. shows 24", should read 25", please check. (Public Works)
p. It appears the existing building/carport will encroach into the 25 ft. B.L.L., please show existing
encroachment on the plat. (Public Works)
q. Please label the parcel's acreage on the map. (Public Works)
r. Please label for clarity, the lines on the map at Reilly Rd., one being the North right of way line, the
other being the survey line. (Public Works)
s. Please show and identify corners of record, or other physical evidence used to establish boundary
per the Land Surveyor's Act. (Public Works)
2. Robinson Subdivision, Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 (July 2014)
a. Per Section 4.3 B of the Subdivision and Development Regulations, the subdivision name shall be
the largest lettering on the plat. (Planning)
b. Bold common lot line for Lots 2 and 3. (Planning)
c. Dedicate a 10 ft. utility easement along the frontage of Huntington Ln. beyond the right-of-way
dedication. (Planning/Public Works)
d. Provide utility slips. (Planning)
e. The site is not served by public sewer. An approved on-site sewage disposal systems will be
required. (Public Works)
f. The site is not served by public water; extension of an 8-in public water line up Huntington Ln. will
be required. (Public Works)
g. Please add the standard note regarding compliance with the storm water ordinance:
• Compliance with the current Stormwater Detention Ordinance will be required on this
property before building permits will be issued". (Public Works)
h. Huntington Ln., is classified as a minor collector (60 ft. right-of-way) on the Thoroughfare Plan.
Please change right-of-way dedication shown as 25 ft. to 30 ft. (Planning/Public Works)
i. In the field notes, paragraph three, the bearing call for Huntington Ln is 35", the map shows 25",
please check. (Public Works)
j. Please label the individual parcel's acreages on the map. (Public Works)
k. Please label for clarity, the lines on the map at Reilly Rd., one being the north right-of-way line, the
other being the survey line. (Public Works/Planning)
I. Please show and identify corners of record, or other physical evidence used to establish boundary
per the Land Surveyor's Act. (Public Works)
3. Robinson Subdivision, Lot 4, Block 1 (June 2014)
a. Per Section 4.3 B of the Subdivision and Development Regulations, the subdivision name shall be
the largest lettering on the plat. (Planning)
b. Identify the location of the structure on/along north lot line and adjust as needed. The plat will not
be approved by the city with a building on a property line. (Planning)
c. Provide utility slips. (Planning)
d. Dedicate a 10 ft. utility easement along the frontage of Reilly Rd. (Planning/Public Works)
e. The site is not served by public sewer; approved on-site sewage disposal system will be required.
(Public Works)
f. The site is served by public water. (Public Works)
g. Please add the standard note regarding compliance with the storm water ordinance:
• Compliance with the current Stormwater Detention Ordinance will be required on this
property before building permits will be issued". (Public Works)
h. Please clarify the ownership of the strip of land between the North right-of-way line of Reilly Rd.,
and the old survey line (South line of Section 37), is that strip owned by TxDot, or Mr. Robinson?
Will it be given as right of way on this plat? (Public Works)
i. In the field notes, paragraph two, and on the map, the bearing call for Reilly Rd. is 58', the
preliminary plat shows 48', please check. In paragraph five, the bearing and distance call is not
along the North line of Reilly Rd., please check. In paragraph six, again the bearing call is 58', the
preliminary plat shows 48', please check. (Public Works)
j. Please label the parcel's acreage on the map. (Public Works)
k. Please check the location of the west leader line for the bearing and distance of S 89°58'39" E
526.68', it should originate from the survey line intersection, not the intersection of the survey line
and the North right of way line of Reilly Rd. (Public Works)
I. Please show and identify corners of record, or other physical evidence used to establish boundary
per the Land Surveyor's Act. (Public Works)
4. Robinson Subdivision, Lot 5, Block 1 (June 2014)
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 5 JULY 9, 2014
a. Per Section 4.3 B of the Subdivision and Development Regulations, the subdivision name shall be
the largest lettering on the plat. (Planning)
b. Provide utility slips. (Planning)
c. Dedicate a 10 ft. utility easement along the frontage of Reilly Rd. (Planning/Public Works)
d. The site is not served by public sewer; approved on-site sewage disposal system will be required.
(Public Works)
e. The site is served by public water. (Public Works)
f. Please add the standard note regarding compliance with the storm water ordinance:
• Compliance with the current Stormwater Detention Ordinance will be required on this
property before building permits will be issued". (Public Works)
g. Please clarify the ownership of the strip of land between the North right-of-way line of Reilly Rd.,
and the old survey line (South line of Section 37), is that strip owned by TxDOT, or Mr. Robinson?
Will it be given as right-of-way on this plat? (Public Works)
h. In the field notes, paragraph two, and on the map, the bearing call for Reilly Rd. is 58', the
preliminary plat shows 48', please check. In paragraph five, the bearing and distance call is not
along the North line of Reilly Rd., please check. In paragraph six, again the bearing call is 58', the
preliminary plat shows 48', and the call is not along the North line of Reilly Rd., please check.
(Public Works)
i. Please label the parcel's acreage on the map. (Public Works)
j. Please check the location of the west leader line for the bearing and distance of S 89°58'39" E
721.72', it should originate from the survey line intersection, not the intersection of the survey line
and the North right-of-way line of Reilly Rd. Also, the distance of 721.72' is calculated to be
721.73' on the preliminary plat, please check. (Public Works)
k. Please show and identify corners of record or other physical evidence used to establish boundary
per the Land Surveyor's Act. (Public Works)
Mr. Combs made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda; Mr. Martin seconded. The motion carried.
REGULAR AGENDA
1. Case C 14-28
Request for a conditional use permit to allow the continuance of use as a commercial day
care facility in a Single Family-2 (SF-2)zoning district.
2001 11 t Street
Ms. Betty Cloud requested conditional use approval to allow the continuance of the property to function as
a commercial day care facility at 2001 11 Street. This day care has been in operation since 1979;
however, it has been vacant for almost two years. In order to maintain the day care status, conditional use
approval is required.
Eighteen (18) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One (1) or 5.56% replied in favor
and no (0) opposing responses were received.
Ms. Cloud stated the day care was in existence prior to the city adopting zoning in 1985. The building has
been vacant for 22 months and she requested conditional use approval to maintain the property as a day
care.
To questioning, Ms. Cloud responded the day care has had continuous operation from 1979. Ms. Cloud
stated the [state] license allows the maximum number of children to be 64; there are two sections in the
facility with each section having a maximum of 32 children.
Mr. Hegglund responded to a question concerning the grandfathering [non-conforming] status that once
the use has ceased for 24 months, the status is lost. This request, if approved, will allow the day care use
permanently at this location.
Mr. Martin made a motion to approve this conditional use request; Mr. Combs seconded. The motion
carried.
2. Case C 14-30
Outdoor storage and display of resale items in the General Commercial (GC) zoning
district
2324 5 Street/Seymour Highway
Mr. Edwin Perez requested conditional use approval to allow outdoor storage of resale items at his
business on Seymour Highway which is located in a General Commercial zoning district. Mr. Perez sells
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 6 JULY 9, 2014
resale items from the store and on the front and side lawns during business hours. The outdoor sale items
are stored outside at all times, during the day and after business hours, and visible from Seymour
Highway. Outdoor storage requires a conditional use permit in GC zoning.
Code Enforcement talked with Mr. Perez regarding this situation on May 30th then followed up with a
courtesy notification letter on June 10th listing the violations. Mr. Perez has indicated to staff that his shop
space is not large enough to accommodate his merchandise. He would like to store the larger pieces
outside.
Staff recommended approval with the following conditions:
1. The property must be platted (right-of-way dedication along 5th Street/Seymour Hwy. as required);
2. The property shall have a fence or other approved screening (6 ft. minimum) installed and
maintained to obscure the view of the outdoor storage from any adjacent land or right-of-way;
3. Gates, normally used for access to the outdoor storage yard, are not required to provide a solid
screen;
4. The outdoor storage yard immediately behind and perpendicular to such gate, to a distance of a
least 30 feet, shall be kept clear of all storage materials. Unscreened gates shall be no wider than
20 feet;
5. Areas around or under outdoor storage materials or buildings shall be kept free and clear of
accumulations of grass, weeds, brush or other uncultivated vegetation;
6. All other development requirements must be met before the issuance of building permits.
Twenty-one (21) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. No (0) responses were
received marked in favor and three (3) or 14.29% replied as opposed.
It was noted that neither the owner nor his representative was present at the meeting.
Ms. Miller stated her office has received several complaints regarding this property. The items displayed
outside are causing the issue. She stated she agrees with staff's recommendations; however, she would
include outdoor items should be stored behind a privacy fence if a conditional use is granted. The
challenge Code Enforcement has found is the determination of items for resale and objects that are
rubbish or trash. At this point, the business is an eyesore.
The question was raised as to what items were stored outside. Ms. Miller stated there was a mattress,
tree limbs, furniture, etc.
Mr. Michael Ledue, property owner to the west of Mr. Perez's business, stated the resale customers were
parking at his location. He also stated this property was an eyesore and had trash intermingled with resale
items.
Mr. Hegglund distributed photos that were taken of the resale business on the day before of the meeting.
To questioning, Ms. Miller responded the business has been in this state for about two to three months.
Mr. Combs asked if staff had discussed the conditions of approval with the applicant. Mr. Mantey stated
he was sent a copy of the staff report. Mr. Mantey suggested to the applicant that the outdoor resale
items be stored behind the building, but Mr. Perez wished to proceed with obtaining conditional use
approval. Mr. Combs asked if the Commission denied this application could the applicant install a fence,
and then have the Commission vote on this request again. Mr. Mantey stated if the Commission denies
this request all items for sale must be kept inside the building. Mr. Hegglund stated this Commission has
the ability to cast a negative vote for this request based upon compatibility and the adverse impacts on the
surrounding community. If denied, the applicant can reapply and if he built a fence, it might have an
impact on the decision by this Commission.
Mr. Graham stated his opposition to this request. Chairperson Metty commented she did not see this as a
viable business. She commented on the furniture and mattress being outside and subjected to rain.
Mr. Martin made a motion to approve this request; Mr. Combs seconded. The vote was zero (0) in favor
and eight(8) opposed. The request for outdoor storage and display was denied by the Commission.
Chairperson Metty stated if the applicant does not agree with the Commission's decision, he can submit
an appeal to City Council. The appeal must be made within ten (10) calendar days of this meeting. An
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 7 JULY 9,2014
Appeal Application is available from the Planning Office. A $50.00 fee will be required when the
application is submitted.
3. Case C 14-31
Conversion of a single family residence into a duplex in a Single Family-2 (SF-2) zoning
district
1608 Cedar Avenue
Mr. Ralph Piper requested conditional use approval to convert a single family residence into a duplex at
1608 Cedar Avenue located in a Single Family-2 zoning district. He proposed to change an existing door
into a party wall thus creating two living quarters. Exterior entrances will be added to the north side of the
house for both spaces. The building footprint will not change.
Twenty (20) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Four(4) or 20.0% replied in favor;
two (2) or 10.0% replied opposed; and, two (2) or 10.0% replied as undecided/other.
It was noted that neither the owner nor his representative was present at the meeting.
Chairperson Metty noted the opposition from the neighborhood mailing stated it was a small house and
dividing it into a duplex would cause each side to have limited space. Mr. Mantey commented the area of
the house is 2,499 sq. ft. The responses also mentioned a problem with inadequate parking for two
families.
Mr. Mantey explained the information regarding surrounding land uses is acquired from the GIS mapping
system. There is one duplex in the area. Chairperson Metty commented the house with the duplex has
more square footage than this house. Mr. Mantey stated this duplex would be the first one on Cedar
Avenue and in that specific block.
Mr. Combs questioned staffs basis for recommending approval. Mr. Mantey stated the Zoning Ordinance
allows duplexes in SF-2 districts as well as other factors. Mr. Combs stated he believed this change
would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood especially since there are only single family
residences in that area.
Mr. Inman asked if Building Inspections had comments regarding the interior and parking. Mr. Teague
stated the interior remodel is subject to submitting a site plan and meeting all building codes. He had no
comments regarding the parking. Mr. Graham asked if permits had been issued; Mr. Teague commented
there is a remodeling permit for that structure but no permit for the conversion to a duplex. When the
applicant changed his original intent, conditional use approval was required before another permit could
be issued. Mr. Graham stated he would like to see the plans. Mr. Martin suggested the applicant needed
to be present in order for these questions to be answered. Chairperson Metty concurred noting the
neighborhood response.
Mr. Combs made a motion to approve this request; Mr. Kidwell seconded. The vote was zero (0) in favor
and eight(8)opposed. The request to change this house into a duplex was denied by the Commission.
Chairperson Metty stated if the applicant does not agree with the Commission's decision, he can submit
an appeal to City Council. The appeal must be made within ten (10) calendar days of this meeting. An
Appeal Application is available from the Planning Office. A $50.00 fee will be required when the
application is submitted.
4. Case C 14-32
Placement of a mobile food trailer in a Residential Mixed Use(RMU)zoning district
212 Farris Street
Ms. NaDonna Norris requested placement of a mobile food trailer at 212 and 210 Farris which is in a
Residential Mixed Use zoning district. Ms. Norris owns Davenport Grocery at 212 Farris and owns the
adjacent vacant lot at 210 Farris. She was advised by staff to replat the two lots into a single lot giving her
enough space for the trailer and adequate parking for the trailer and the grocery store.
Staff felt the intended use of the food trailer fit the definition of a limited restaurant as described in the
Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Norris stated food would not be consumed on the premises. The RMU zoning
district accommodates areas which have residential and nonresidential uses mixed. Due to the mixed
uses, staff felt the purpose of the trailer was in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance.
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 8 JULY 9,2014
The proposed mobile food trailer will be located on both lots and surrounded by another vacant lot and a
residential house. The nonconforming grocery store does not pose a negative impact on the abutting sites
and likewise staff felt this use would not have any adverse effects on the adjoining land uses.
It was noted that the safety and convenience of vehicular and pedestrian traffic as well as all health and
sanitary requirements would not pose a threat to the food trailer at this location. Ms. Norris indicated a
section of the existing carport will be removed in order to park the trailer on the concrete pad. It will also
be aligned with the existing building along the street frontage of Farris Street.
Staff recommended approval with the following conditions:
1. The applicant informed staff the days and hours of operation of her business will be Monday
through Friday from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. She plans to set up the mobile food trailer at local events
on the weekends. Staff believes the hours of operation are within reasonable working times.
2. As stated earlier, food will not be consumed on the premises. Staff believes this will reduce traffic
and noise congestion.
3. The applicant has already met with the Health District, and will be required to conform with all
health codes for the operation of a mobile food trailer.
4. The two lots shall be replatted before any development or placement of the mobile food trailer is
initiated.
5. The applicant shall also meet any and all applicable building codes.
Twenty-two (22) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Eight (8) or 36.36% replied in
favor and no other responses were received for this case.
Ms. Norris was present and stated her business has been in existence at this location since 1926. She felt
this would be an ideal location for the mobile food trailer.
Chairperson Metty stated this case was closed for public comment and open for discussion by the
Commission.
Ms. Norris stated the replatting of the two lots is in progress and will be completed shortly. When asked if
food was served from the grocery store, Ms. Norris stated they serve hot links and hot and cold
sandwiches. She stated she has a profitable lunchtime business. She wanted to get this approval before
purchasing the new food trailer. She will be cooking and serving hamburgers, chicken, fish, sandwiches,
and salads.
Mr. Kidwell made a motion to approve this request; Mr. Inman seconded. The motion carried.
5. Case C 14-33a
Request to place an accessory structure (storage building) that will encroach into the
building limit line of the exterior side setback
1416 Hayes Street
Jim and Judi Head requested conditional use approval to retain a partially constructed accessory structure
(storage building)within the exterior side setback at their residence at 1416 Hayes Street.
The applicants' contractor began construction in May of 2014 without obtaining a building permit, without
consideration of the setback requirement and without Landmark Commission approval. Code
Enforcement issued a stop work order on May 21st followed by a notice from Building Inspections to
remove the structure. Ms. Head is seeking alternative ways to resume the construction of this structure.
The storage building is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance as constructed. The applicants would prefer to
retain the 10 ft. by 15 ft. storage building which is 5 ft. 4 inches from the property line on Avenue E, or 9 ft.
8 inches into the building limit line with the requirement being 15 ft.
Ms. Head was informed she could request a reduction in the setback requirements provided she complies
with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. It states the Commission may allow an exception to the
setback requirements if the accessory building complies with having the same or similar style and uses
the materials that resemble and have the same detailing as primary structure.
The applicant's house is located in the West Floral Heights Historic District and requires review by the
Landmark Commission. Ms. Head submitted an application for their initial review at the June 24th meeting.
The Landmark Commission introduced a conditional motion of approval pending the Planning and Zoning
Commission approval based on the conditions set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision and
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 9 JULY 9,2014
Development Regulations. This action should assist with the compatibility of the storage structure with the
primary residence.
This storage building will not have any adverse effect on the neighborhood or abutting sites.
Staff had concerns and did not recommend approval. This neighborhood is characterized by older homes,
many predating the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. If an exception is granted for the setback
requirements, this possibly could establish a precedent for future cases.
If the Commission approves this conditional use request, staff recommended the following conditions:
1. The proposed storage structure shall have the same or similar style, uses materials that
resembles and has the same detailing as the primary structure; the primary structure is made of
brick and as such staff expects the storage structure to be constructed with the same or similar
materials;
2. The applicant shall also meet all applicable building codes; and
3. The applicant shall apply for a building permit prior to construction.
Twenty-four (24) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Five (5) or 20.83% replied in
favor; one (1) or 4.17% replied as opposed; and one (1) or 4.17% replied as undecided/other.
Ms. Head was present for the meeting. She stated she hired a contractor to construct this building to
house her lawn mowing equipment. Ms. Head commented the house was built in 1924 and matching the
brick would be difficult. She suggested using cement board painted with a color to match the house.
Chairperson Metty stated this case was closed for public comment and open for Commission discussion.
Mr. Teague stated a permit had not been issued prior to construction. Code Enforcement did issue a stop
work order after construction began. Mr. Teague stated at that time the structure had been framed and no
other work was done.
Ms. Gagne explained this issue was presented to the June Landmark Commission meeting where there
was significant discussion regarding this situation. They were concerned only with the materials being
used for construction and the compatibility within the district as new construction. Their approval was
conditioned upon the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission for the placement of the structure.
Mr. Kidwell stated the Landmark Commission wanted the materials to be similar to the existing home.
Mr. Combs asked if similar materials were used, could the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this
structure. Mr. Hegglund commented the current motion before this Commission includes staff
recommendations which specify brick or similar materials. Mr. Graham stated staff does not want to set a
precedent in a historic district by allowing a setback reduction. Mr. Hegglund agreed, staff does not
recommend approval but if the Commission chooses to approve the request, compliance with certain
criteria is a condition and is incorporated into the motion.
Ms. Carolyn Looney, 1500 Hayes, stated she was the only resident that would be able to see this structure
from a residence. She stated she had no problem with the construction and noted there were trees
obstructing the view. Ms. Looney stated she had confidence in the contractor and that brick was not an
issue. There are no out buildings constructed of brick in the district. She further stated she does not
believe the placement of this structure would set a precedent. Ms. Looney commented that she does not
want to see the Heads penalized for this building. Mr. Combs asked if there was discussion regarding the
building materials at the Landmark meeting; Ms. Looney replied affirmatively.
Mr. Kidwell stated the Landmark Commission should address the appearance. If an allowance is made
regarding the setbacks, he did not feel this would set a precedent. This is part of the role of the Planning
and Zoning Commission. Mr. Martin stated a person wanting to build in the setback is welcome to present
their case to this Commission. Mr. Combs stated it should be considered on a case-by-case basis. As in
this case, the foliage and the fence are a problem for relocating the structure plus the adjoining neighbor
has no problem with this request. Each case would have different elements and not the same as this case
thus not setting a precedent.
Chairperson Metty asked if a professional contractor was doing the work. Ms. Head stated he was and the
structure would fit into the neighborhood.
Mr. Graham asked if the building across the alley has the same setback as the applicant. He asked when
that building was constructed. Mr. Martin stated numerous structures were constructed in the setback in
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 10 JULY 9,2014
this neighborhood. They were older buildings probably constructed before the historic district was
established. This building will not be the only building in that area to be constructed in the setback.
Mr. Mantey reminded the Commission that one of the functions of the Planning Division is to ensure
development occurring after the establishment of zoning in the city in 1985 is in compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance regulations.
To questioning, Mr. Hegglund responded that to change the staff recommendation would require making
an additional motion. The voting procedure would be to vote on the second [changed] motion first, then
vote on the original motion.
Mr. Wingo stated he was leaning towards approving this request with changes to the recommendations. It
was noted the concern was for recommendation #1, the similar materials. Mr. Kidwell commented the first
recommendation was from the Landmark Commission. Mr. Hegglund stated if recommendation #1 is
changed, the case must be presented again to Landmark Commission for consideration. Mr. Wingo stated
if the vote is in favor of this request, the applicant must comply with all staff recommendations. He
continued by stating it has been discussed that brick should not be a requirement. He commented that
carports in Floral Heights are not brick or of similar materials to the front building [house]. Mr. Hegglund
stated that recommendation #1 is based on the Landmark Commission's prior ruling. In order to be in
harmony with the Landmark Commission, the recommendation should not be changed. Mr. Hegglund
stated again if recommendation#1 is changed, it would require Landmark approval. Mr. Kidwell noted that
recommendation was based on the Design Guidelines.
Mr. Combs asked the applicant if she would be opposed to returning to the Landmark Commission for
consideration of not using brick or would she rather have this Commission approve the request with the
understanding that the structure would be bricked. Mr. Hegglund stated that regarding recommendation
#1, the ordinance states a compatible material [to the original structure] can be used. Chairperson Metty
asked if the compatible material was exclusively brick; Mr. Hegglund stated that was his interpretation. Ms.
Head stated the storage building is 10 ft. by 15 ft. and she felt using brick would be cost prohibitive. Mr.
Kidwell suggested returning this case to the Landmark Commission. Mr. Hegglund stated the ordinance
requires the construction of the building to be compatible with the main structure and not use a similar
material. Mr. Martin asked if the garage and the garage apartment were brick; Ms. Head replied
affirmatively. She also commented there are numerous properties with brick houses and the garages are
wood. Mr. Martin noted that some of the homes in the district have wood siding.
Chairperson Metty stated that considering the remarks from Ms. Looney and the limited space where this
building could be constructed, she felt the Commission should approve this request. Mr. Hegglund
reminded the Commission that the ordinance states the material used in construction must be similar to
the primary structure. Mr. Wingo asked if faux brick, similar to brick paneling, could be used if painted to
match the primary structure. Mr. Hegglund stated the Commission must approve or deny this case. If the
applicant does not want to comply with recommendation #1, she would need to discuss the matter with
Planning. Mr. Hegglund stated if the Landmark Commission approves faux brick and the applicant works
with Planning, this situation could be resolved.
Mr. Wingo made a motion to approve this request; Mr. Martin seconded. The vote was seven (7) in favor
and one(1 —Graham) opposed. Conditional use approval was granted by the Commission.
Case C 14-33b
Request to retroactively grant conditional use approval for an unpermitted existing
accessory structure (carport) which encroaches into the building limit line of the exterior
side setback
1416 Hayes
There is a 24 ft. by 24 ft. carport located at 1416 Hayes which encroaches into the building limit line of the
exterior side setback along Avenue E, adjacent to the partially constructed storage building. Staff
determined that no building permit was issued for this carport. This property is in the West Floral Heights
Historic District. Any exterior alterations, including new construction, require a design review by the
Landmark Commission. There are no records for a review in the Landmark database.
Extensive research, including a review of aerial maps from 1986 to 2006, did not show the carport could
be verified. Ms. Head's neighbors indicated the carport was constructed at least 20 years ago. Planning
was able to verify the carport was constructed at least 8 years ago.
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 11 JULY 9,2014
In order to ensure conformance and to enable Building Inspection and Planning staff to keep accurate
data for future use, staff believed it was pertinent for this Commission to retroactively approve this carport
as is, for it to be in conformance with the Subdivision Regulations and the Building Code.
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. The applicants/owners obtain a building permit.
2. The carport shall be inspected by Building Inspection staff to ensure it meets all building codes.
Twenty-four (24) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Six (6) or 25.0% replied in
favor; no(0) opposing responses were received; and, one (1)or 4.17% replied as undecided/other.
Ms. Head stated she moved into this house in 2011. The only changes to the carport were the addition of
braces for reinforcement and cedar shingles added to the roof. She does not know if a building permit
was issued for the initial construction of the carport.
Ms. Looney stated she has lived in the neighborhood for 14 years. When she moved in, the carport looked
old then.
Chairperson Metty closed this case for public comment and opened discussion with the Commission.
Mr. Combs asked how the issue came up to require the current resident to permit an existing structure.
Mr. Mantey stated, when the previous issue [Case C 14-33a] of the storage building was brought to
Planning a thorough investigation of the property was done. At that time, it was determined the carport
had never been permitted. Staff wanted to ensure this carport complied with all building codes.
Mr. Martin inquired about the storage of permit records; Mr. Teague explained the city has microfiche
dating to 1920's or 1930's but there is no machine to view them. The electronic records begin in 2002.
There are no records of the carport being permitted. Most of the aerials are not finely detailed to show a
carport but it was determined that it existed in 2006. Getting the building permit is a formality to make it
legal. It will undergo an inspection as any new carport would and no problems are anticipated.
Mr. Inman asked if it was possible this carport was permitted when it was constructed; Mr. Mantey stated
there are no records indicating it was permitted. Mr. Inman asked why it is being addressed now. Mr.
Combs asked if the carport could be approved without staff recommendations. Chairperson Metty stated
the city wants to make sure this is a safe structure and therefore is requiring the recommendations of a
building permit and an inspection. Mr. Hegglund stated having the carport inspected for safety reasons
was necessary. The Commission can modify any of the recommendations. The applicant has applied and
paid for this conditional use approval so the request needs a vote.
Mr. Wingo made the motion to approve this request; Mr. Kidwell seconded. The motion carried.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
Case C 14-30
Two people from the audience were recognized by Chairperson Metty who asked them to step to the
podium and introduce themselves. They were Angela and Edward Perez, the applicants for Case C 14-30,
Outdoor Storage and Display at 2324 5 Street/Seymour Highway.
Mr. Hegglund stated this case has been voted on and denied. The Commission can take a vote to
reconsider and reopen this case. Chairperson Metty stated the case was thoroughly discussed. Mr.
Kidwell noted the people in the audience [surrounding property owners] had opposition to case. They left
the meeting after the vote when it was declared the case was denied. It was mentioned the applicants can
reapply to have the case considered again.
Chairperson Metty stated if the applicants do not agree with the Commission's decision, they can submit
an appeal to City Council. The appeal must be made within ten (10) calendar days of this meeting. An
Appeal Application is available from the Planning Office. A $50.00 fee will be required when the
application is submitted.
Ms. Perez asked if the business could open. Chairperson Metty stated the business cannot have outdoor
storage if it opens. Mr. Hegglund cautioned the Perez's that there cannot be any outdoor storage. If
outdoor storage is found, Code Enforcement will write tickets because it was not permitted. Ms. Perez
asked if everything outside needed to be moved. Chairperson Metty said "Yes, it should be removed".
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 12 JULY 9,2014
VII. ADJOURN
i)
The meeting djourned at 3:15 p.m.
01-1)A- (3-3 /I/
Karla Metty, hairperson Date
ATTEST:
t , Achtii 08 - 1, - /1-1
Karen Gagne, Dept. of C4nmunity Development Date