Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 05/14/2014 MINUTES
PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION
May 14, 2014
PRESENT:
John Kidwell, Vice Chairperson •Members
Barney Brock •
Jeff Browning •
Johnny Combs •
Rodney Martin •
R. C. Taylor •
James Wingo •
Rick Graham •
Anthony Inman •Alternate#1
Dan Leslie •Alternate#2
Miles Risley, City Attorney •Legal Dept.
Karen Gagne, Planning Administrator •City Staff
Monique Coleman, Planner II •
Leo Mantey, Planner I •
Diane Parker •
ABSENT:
Karla Metty, Chairperson • Members
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Kidwell at 2:00 p.m.; he 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 phone ringers 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 May 14,2014
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one from the audience wished to address the Commission.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Coleman stated the April 9, 2014 minutes will be considered for approval at the June
meeting.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
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.
REGULAR PLAT:
Singleton Addition, Section 3, Lot 13-A, Block 9 [replat] (May 2014)
a. O.K. to abandon if after located and verified that AT&T cable is not within the alley or if
the AT&T cable is relocated at the cost of the customer. (AT&T)
b. Please note the alley was closed via Ordinance #43-2012 on the plat. (Planning)
c. If filed for record, please input easement abandonment instrument volume and page on
the plat. (Planning)
d. Provide utility slips. (Planning)
e. The site is served by public sewer and water. (Public Works)
f. Please show the "basis of bearings" on the plat. (Public Works)
g. Please fill in the volume and page numbers, as well as ordinance numbers, prior to filing
the plat. (Public Works)
h. Lake Park Drive, is defined as a major collector per the 2005 Thoroughfare Plan (70 ft.
of right-of-way), Public Works would like to meet with the Surveyor to discuss right-of-
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 3 May 14,2014
way dedication for Lake Park Drive. Public Works is requesting a 20 ft. right-of-way
dedication. (Public Works)
CARPORTS:
1. Case C 14-12
Residential carport in the front setback
1414 Gunnison Drive
Mr. Anthony Kitchen requested conditional use approval to construct a carport in the front
setback of his residence on Gunnison Drive. There were eight (8) carports within 200 feet of the
perimeter of his property with carports in the front setback.
Thirty-three (33) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Ten (10) or 30.30%
replied in favor, none (0) were opposed.
2. Case C 14-16
Residential carport in the front setback
34 Grant Gill Lane
Ms. Sharon Newsom requested conditional use approval to construct a carport in the front
setback of her home on Grant Gill Lane. There were not any carports in the front setback
within the 200 foot perimeter of her property.
Seventeen (17) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. No responses were
received.
Mr. Martin made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda; Mr. Taylor seconded. The motion
carried. Vice Chairperson Kidwell stated the carports on Gunnison Drive and Grant Gill Lane
were approved.
V. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Case C 14-19
Residential carport in the front setback
1513 Aldrich Avenue
Mr. Eric Hawkey requested conditional use approval for a carport at his residence on Aldrich
Avenue. There were not any carports in the front setback within 200 feet of the perimeter of his
property.
Thirty-three (33) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Five (5) or 15.15%
replied in favor; one (1) or 3.03% replied opposed; and, two (2) or 6.06% were undecided/other.
The applicant was not present at this meeting. There were no members from the audience that
wished to comment.
Mr. Graham stated the negative response questioned the placement of the carport in relation to
the sidewalk. Ms. Coleman responded the carport is permitted to extend to the front property
line. There is a 25 foot setback; however, the conditional use process allows placement of a
carport any place within the front setback up to the front property line.
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 4 May 14,2014
Vice Chairperson Kidwell noted there were no carports within 200 foot of this property. Ms.
Coleman stated the applicant provided a sample of a carport located on the southeast corner of
Christine and Southmoor Streets which is outside the 200 foot buffer.
Mr. Combs asked if this carport is in the rear. Ms. Coleman stated the sample carport is located
in the exterior side setback of that property. The sample is what the carport would resemble in
front of the applicant's house.
Mr. Taylor made a motion to approve this case; Mr. Browning seconded. The vote was seven
(7) in favor and one (1 — Mr. Combs) opposed. The carport request is approved.
2. Case 14-15
Request for a conditional use permit to establish a commercial use (a midwife
birthing center) within 30 feet of a residential use
1312 10th Street
Ms. Kasie McElhaney, LM, CPM. is requesting conditional use approval to established a
commercial use (a midwife birthing center) within 30 feet of a residential use. If approved, this
request will require the existing property in General Commercial zoning to be converted from a
residence to a commercial use.
Ms. Coleman stated the applicant has met with staff to discuss her business. There will be three
(3) birthing rooms in this building. Parking was discussed. Ms. McElhaney was informed this
use would require 16 parking spaces, 1 space per 200 square feet. The parking requirement
could be reduced if a portion of the property, the third floor which is 1,036 square feet, was not
used by clients but for storage only. This would reduce the parking to 11 spaces. With a shared
parking agreement with the Tenth and Broad Church of Christ, the number of spaces would be
reduced to five (5). There would be six (6) spaces located off site at the Church. The applicant
has submitted a shared parking agreement signed by the Church for the six (6) spaces.
The preliminary site plan showed six (6) spaces, with some in the shared driveway for 1310 and
1312 10th Street. Staff requested no parking be permitted in the shared driveway.
Staff recommended the following conditions be met for this request:
Staff recommends approval of this request if the following conditions are met:
1. The existing trees along 10th St. will remain and will be trimmed and maintained to reveal
the front of the building;
2. The one parking space shown on the site plan in the shared driveway [for 1312 and
1310 10th Street] must be removed;
3. A written and signed objection to the construction of a screen device from the affected
property owner of 1310 10th Street;
4. Site plan approval. A revised site plan showing dimensions to confirm adequate parking
stall size, ingress/egress and circulation for the proposed parking on site; and
5. A written statement from the prospective owner indicating the floor or rooms in size and
location that will be used for storage only [not to be used by clients]; and
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 5 May 14,2014
6. Provide the Planning Office with a copy of the filed shared parking agreement.
The applicant has complied with conditions #4 and #5 prior to this meeting.
Ms. McElhaney presented a revised site plan showing access via the alley and the five (5)
required parking spaces. She explained the site plan to the Commission members. Mr. Taylor
asked if the neighbor who shares this driveway was in agreement with her plan. Ms. McElhaney
replied that she had not shown this to him. Ms. Coleman stated the driveway can be used as
such, but not as a parking space.
Vice Chairperson Kidwell inquired about screening. Ms. Coleman stated there is a requirement
for a 6 foot tall privacy fence separating the two uses (commercial and residential). As a
condition of approval, the neighbor at 1310 10th Street could submit a written objection to the
screening.
Mr. Browning inquired about a handicap parking space. Ms. Coleman said she believed one (1)
space would be required. She continued by stating that the building would need to be retrofitted
to be handicap accessible.
Mr. Combs inquired about the monitoring of the third floor to ensure it would not be used. Ms.
Coleman stated the Planning office has a field verification process which confirms the
conditions of approval are being upheld.
Mr. Wingo asked about employee parking. The applicant stated she has one employee who
assists her. Ms. McElhaney tries to schedule appointments with having only two appointments
at one time.
Mr. Kevin Boerma, neighbor, stated he can currently hear street and alley noises in his house.
A concern he has is that the main bedroom for his house is adjacent to this house. As the
business grows, he has concerns about the noise and a 24 hour operation.
The back building is also an issue. He and the applicant each own 50% of the building. He is
concerned because he is maintaining his side while the other side is in poor condition.
Mr. Brock asked Mr. Boerma if he could live with this commercial use next door. He stated he
would prefer to see the property keep its residential status. Mr. Combs asked if there was an
average number of people attending a birth. Ms. McElhaney explained there could be as few as
one or two or there could be numerous family members as well as a photographer.
Mr. Justin James stated he is the owner of 1312 10th; this property was once a doctor's office
and was used as such for 30-40 years. An antique dealer later acquired both 1310 and 1312
10th then operated a store front business from 1310 10th. This property is in a commercial zone.
As far as noise is concerned, there is a fire station about 1-1/2 blocks down the street which is
a 24 hour operation. The Boerma's purchased their property knowing there would be 24 hour
disturbances. He noted the hospital with ambulances arriving regularly is down the street, also
24 hours a day. The overhead freewayis only a block away and it is also noisy. Mr. Martin
pointed out that if 1312 10th remained a residence, a family might move in with a crying baby,
teenagers, a dog or all three and it would be exceptionally noisy.
Mr. Graham noted, within the 360 degrees around Mr. Boerma's property, there are all
commercial uses with the exception of his residence.
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 6 May 14,2014
Vice Chairperson Kidwell asked what a contractor would be able to do in order to alleviate the
noise. Mr. Martin stated acoustic panels in the birthing rooms would absorb the sound. Mr.
Taylor stated windows could be changed out to cut the noise. Ms. McElhaney stated there will
be new windows throughout the house and she would do sound proof on the wall adjacent to
Mr. Boerma's house. She does not want to cause problems with her neighbors.
There were several conversations being held at the same time regarding parking and
noise.
It was noted that Mr. Boerma could also install sounding proofing and noise reduction windows
in his adjacent wall to the birthing center.
Ms. McElhaney was asked about her remodeling budget; she replied it began with $20,000 and
then was changed to be around $40,000.
The meeting was closed for audience participation and opened for Commission discussion.
Mr. Taylor commented that he was impressed that the applicant has considered sound proofing
in her remodeling efforts; he feels there will not be much of a noise problem. Vice Chairperson
Kidwell stated he agrees if the applicant takes the necessary steps with the noise reduction
efforts and will work with clients' parking.
Mr. Martin made a motion to approve this request; Mr. Taylor seconded. The vote was seven
(7) in favor and one (1 — Mr. Brock) opposed. The birth center was approved with conditions.
3. Case C 14-17a
Residential carport in the exterior side setback
1683 Speedway Avenue
Ms. Judith Schnedorf requested conditional use approval to construct a carport in the exterior
side setback of Justin Schnedorf, her son's, residence on Speedway where she and her
husband reside. There is one (1) property within 200 feet of her property with a carport in the
exterior side setback.
Twenty-one (21) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One (1) or 4.75%
replied in favor and two (2) or 9.52 replied opposed.
Ms. Schnedorf gave a brief history of the home where she lives that is owned by her son. The
son is scheduled to relocate from the Metroplex next summer into this house.
She requested the carport be constructed for an additional living area. An approach from
Cherokee already exists for a carport. She asked for a 20' x 20' carport; however, she thought
the size might be reduced in order to save an oak tree. To questioning she explained the
carport would begin at the fence which will be removed. It will align with the garage and not
extend beyond it.
Mr. Taylor asked which carport, the pitched roof or the flat roof, would be built. She commented
her son favored the pitched roof.
The meeting was closed for public comment on this case and open for discussion with the
Commission.
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 7 May 14,2014
Mr. Taylor stated he did not see a problem with granting this carport. He continued by stating he
saw a need for the carport when the son moves here.
Mr. Martin stated this carport would not affect the front of the property. Vice Chairperson Kidwell
commented that he would prefer the pitched roof be constructed.
To questioning Ms. Gagne stated this house is not part of an official historical district; however,
Planning staff and the Landmark Commission have been working with West Brook Village
representatives to consider a historical nomination for the area.
Mr. Taylor made a motion to approve this request; Mr. Wingo seconded. The motion carried.
4. Case C 14-17b
Request to expand an existing non-conforming use (existing garage to be
converted into an accessory dwelling unit)
1683 Speedway Avenue
Ms. Judith Schnedorf requested an expansion of 212 square feet to the existing garage at the
residence of her son Justin Schnedorf where she and her husband reside. The garage with this
addition will become an accessory dwelling unit. The garage is legally non-conforming because
it was originally built into the exterior side setback. The request to expand the non-conforming
structure will not increase noncompliance in height or setback. The existing storage buillding
indicated by the dashed lines on the map will be moved to another location in the rear yard.
Twenty-five surrounding property owners were notified of this request. There were no
responses in favor and two (2) or 9.52% responded as opposed.
Ms. Schnedorf stated the desire is to take the plain garage covert to a pitched roof; however the
bedrooms of the house are three feet above. It will be constructed with siding because the brick
could not be matched. The Georgian style will be retained in order to fit with the era of the
house. The addition will be a one-bedroom apartment with a bathroom and closet. The existing
storage building will be placed in the southeast corner of the rear yard.
Mr. Martin asked if the addition would be rented to non-family members. Ms. Schnedorf replied
at some future date her son might decide to rent to a single person or two college students. She
stated the apartment will be handicap accessible.
Vice Chairman Kidwell asked if there was access from the garage into the home. Ms.
Schnedorf replied there is a door leading into the utility room. After the remodel, there will be
access from the apartment into the home as they will reside in the converted garage.
The meeting was closed for public comments and opened for Commission discussion.
Mr. Martin remarked that one mail in response explained they worried about the addition
becoming an apartment. He stated most of the homes in that area have garage apartments and
the property next door is a duplex and next to that is a four-plex. Mr. Graham commented that
the Commission would need a reason to vote no and too many apartments in the area, is not
considered a valid reason.
Mr. Taylor asked if this house with these additions might be considered for historic nomination.
Ms. Gagne stated the Schnedorf's are trying to build on to the original home in a manner that
would be required if it were a designated area for design review. Anytime a new historic district
is proposed then nominated to the Landmark Commission, it is then recommended to City
Council for final approval. The date of the Council approval is when changes must be in
compliance with the Landmark Commission standards; changes made before that time are
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 8 May 14,2014
considered grandfathered. If the applicant would like to review the design review guidelines as
a guide in their construction project that could be accomplished.
Mr. Martin made a motion to approve this request; Mr. Taylor seconded. The motion carried.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
City Council Update
Ms. Coleman stated there were no items from this Commission that required City Council action
during the last month.
VII. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:11 p.m.
.4101r_.„4", /1-/Y
• n Kidwell, Vice hairperson Date
ATTEST:
41)11 N I a(C - 1I - I `i
Karen Gagne, Dept. Of Community Development Date