Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 12/11/2013 MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
December 11, 2013
PRESENT:
R. C. Taylor, Chairman •Members
Barney Brock •Alternate#2
Johnny Combs •
Jeff Browning •
John Kidwell •
Rick Graham •
Rodney Martin •Alternate#1
James Wingo •
Anthony Inman, Alternate #1 in 2014 (seated in audience for observation) •
Daniel Leslie, Alternate #2 in 2014 (seated in audience for observation) •
Kinley Hegglund, Senior City Attorney •Legal Depart.
James McKechnie, Assist. City Attorney •
Bobby Teague, Asst. Director of Community Development/Building Official •City Staff
Karen Gagne, Planning Administrator •
Monique Coleman, Planner II •
Leo Mantey, Planner I •
Diane Parker •
ABSENT:
Mary Ward • Council Liaison
John Harmon • Members
Karla Metty •
Vicky Payne •
I. 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:
Chairman Taylor announced John Harmon and Vicky Payne have resigned from the
Commission. He thanked them for their time and dedication volunteering for this Commission
and their community. These two members will be missed.
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.
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 2 DECEMBER 11, 2013
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 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. Martin made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 13, 2013 meeting. Mr.
Browning seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the following plats 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 the Director
of Public Works.
• Submit sewer, street, sidewalk and drainage plans to the Director of Public Works and
water plans to both the Fire Marshall and the Director of Public Works. Drainage plans
must be complete enough to include impact on surrounding property and include
detention facilities as required by Director of Public Works.
• Coordinate street lighting plan and provide utility easements as required by the Director
of Traffic and Transportation.
• Submit two (2) copies of corrected preliminary plat to Planning Division before final
platting.
Note: Approval of a plat does not imply development of property in violation of the
Zoning Ordinance.
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Kemp's Subdivision, Lots 2-8, Block 11 (December 2013)
a. Additional easements are required prior to approving a final plat. (Oncor)
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 3 DECEMBER 11, 2013
b. OK; but need U/E [utility easement] around front of lots from Barnett Rd — Lot 2-3-4-5-6-
7-8. Also along Barnett Rd. by sides of Lots 2 & 8. It appears to be drawn on [the]
preliminary plat but too small to read. (AT&T)
c. Is the legal description correct? The current property description appears to be different
than indicated on the plat. Please clarify. (Planning)
d. Please indicate subdivision boundaries by heavy lines. Please also indicate the two
remaining pieces of Lot 5 as "Remainder of Lot 5". (Planning)
e. Provide a length/dimension from nail to nail along the north property line. (Planning)
f. Blocks shall not be less than 600 ft. or longer than 1800 ft. The north property lines
measures 2,239.60 ft. Please establish another block. (Planning)
g. Each lot must have a dimension. Please do not place dimensions over common lot lines.
Also, some of the lot frontage measurements do not appear to scale correctly. Please
verify. (Planning)
h. Please propose a name for the future street. New street names shall not duplicate, or
sound like existing streets in the city or ETJ. (Planning)
i. Cul-de-sacs shall not exceed 900 ft. in length in commercial and industrial areas and
shall have a turn-around right-of-way of not less than 200 ft. in diameter in commercial
and industrial areas. (Planning)
j. Please add the following note: All development must adhere to Section 3360 of the
Zoning Ordinance. (Planning)
k. The site is served by public sewer and water. (Public Works)
I. Please show approximate location of Raw Water Line on Plat. (Public Works)
m. Please show on plat typical utility easements along rights of way, and provide utility
easement over existing sewer manhole and line northerly of Forest Cove Dr. (Public
Works)
n. Comply with Storm water Ordinance (add note to plat), detention can be provided on an
individual lot basis or as a combined detention facility for all lots. (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. Edgemere Church of Christ Addition, Lot 1, Block 1 (December 2013)
a. Additional easements are required. Angie Forrester will contact CP&B. (Oncor)
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 4 DECEMBER 11, 2013
b. Show side yard setbacks on corner lots. (15 ft. B.L.L. for residential; 25 ft. B.L.L. for
non-residential. (Planning)
c. Please provide utility slips and all building footprints on the plat.(Planning)
d. The site is served by public sewer and water. (Public Works)
e. Please show Jarmon St. on the plat as it intersects Neta Lane. (Public Works)
f. Please locate and provide 20 ft. drainage easement over and across existing 42-in.
storm drain pipe that traverses the property. (Public Works)
g. Please provide 10 ft. utility easements along existing road frontages. (Public Works)
2. Kemp's Subdivision of the William Mayer Survey, A-193, Lot 6, Block 1 (December
2013)
a. All access to state roadways shall be approved by TxDOT. (TxDOT)
b. Additional easements are required. Contact David Rivers. (Oncor)
c. I see Barnett Rd. 120 ft. R.O.W.; I see 30 ft. water line easement. Will there need to
be a U/E [utility easement] from Barnett Rd. R.O.W. to the property? May not need.
(AT&T)
d. Please label the lot — Lot 6 and show the 25 ft. B.L.L. on the plat. (Planning)
e. Section 6.3 E of the Subdivision and Development Regulations (S&DRs) state: The
property owner shall be required to identify buried, aerial, or above-ground pipelines
or other buried, aerial or above-ground utility, and if such is not within an easement
recorded for record shall contact the utility owner and dedicate or have dedicated
such an easement and recorded and filed on the plat or separate instrument as
required by the governmental unit. Please provide easements for the pipeline and
electric transmission lines shown on the plat. (Planning)
f. The frontage width at the B.L.L. measures 50 ft. In accordance with Section 3080 of
the Zoning Ordinance, 60 ft. minimum lot width is required for a single family
dwelling in an SF-1 zoning district; 50 ft. lot minimum for other uses. (Planning)
g. Please place the following note on the plat:
Development Regulations
Each site in the SF-1 District shall be subject to the following site regulations except
zero lot line single family dwellings and limited multifamily residential developments:
1. Lot area: 8,500 sq. ft. minimum for single family dwelling; 500 sq. ft.
minimum for other uses
2. Lot width: 60 ft., minimum for single family dwelling; 50 ft. minimum for other
uses.
3. Residential density: 1 primary dwelling unit per lot, maximum.
4. Height: 35 ft. maximum. For School and Religious Assembly uses, the
maximum height shall be 45 ft.
5. Building coverage: 50% of lot area, maximum. (Planning)
h. Provide utility slips. (Planning)
i. The site is served by public water, however, no public sewer is available; an
approved on-site septic system will need to be installed. (Public Works)
j. Please verify location and show on plat the 20-in brine line across the frontage, to
confirm that it is located within the existing easement. (Public Works)
k. Please provide a drainage easement across the affected portion of the property,
sufficient in width to handle the 100-year flow. (Public Works)
I. Please provide to the Health District, On-Site Sewage Facility subdivision plans for
review. The planning materials shall be prepared by a professional engineer or
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 5 DECEMBER 11,2013
professional sanitarian and shall include an overall site plan, topographic map, 100-
year floodplain map, soil survey, location of water wells, locations of easements.
(Health)
3. Mesa Irrigated Farms, Lot 1, Block 2 (December 2013)
a. Additional easements are required. Contact Larry Laukhuf. (Oncor)
b. Provide utility slips. (Planning)
c. The site is served by public water, however public sewer service is not available, an
approved on site septic system will be required. (Public Works)
d. Right of way for Parkhill should be 50 ft. in width, please verify and show East side
of right-of-way. (Planning/Public Works)
e. Please provide a drainage easement across the rear of the property, sufficient in
width to handle the 100-year flow. (Public Works)
4. Miller Heights Addition, Lot 7, Block 1 (December 2013)
a. This plat appears to match the preliminary submitted for the Miller Heights Addition.
Please note, all final plats cannot be filed for record until the Miller Heights Addition
Preliminary Plat has been approved. (Planning)
b. Only one-half the deficit of right-of-way for Kiel Lane is classified as a major collector
via the Thoroughfare Plan and requires 70 ft. There is 15.13 ft. of R.O.W. dedicated
via this plat along Kiel Ln. which exceeds the one-half deficit requirement. Please
clarify. (Planning)
c. Planning staff submitted an addressing proposal for Lots 1-7 of the Miller Heights
Addition to the platting agent on Nov. 27, 2013. Lot 7 is proposed to be addressed
as 5300 Kiel Ln. once the preliminary plat is approved. (Planning)
d. Please provide utility slips. (Planning)
e. The site is served by public water, however no public sewer service is available, an
approved on-site septic system will need to be installed. (Public Works)
f. Please show a survey tie, with a broken line, to the 3/8-in. spike previously found
and shown on the preliminary plat, as well as bearing and distance up the 20.00 ft.
along the west property line from centerline of Kiel. (Public Works)
g. Please provide to the Health District, On-Site Sewage Facility subdivision plans for
review. The planning materials shall be prepared by a professional engineer or
professional sanitarian and shall include an overall site plan, topographic map, 100-
year floodplain map, soil survey, location of water wells, locations of easements.
(Health)
5. Original Townsite, Lot 1A, Block N (December 2013)
a. Additional easements are required. Contact David Rivers. (Oncor)
b. The proposed Lot 1A appears to be comprised of three (3) lots, 204 Burnett St., 200
Burnett St., and 1210 Warren Street. Please show previously platted lots and
existing features within the subdivision with a light dashed line. Were these lots
subdivided by metes and bounds and never replatted? (Planning)
c. Warren St. is classified as a local commercial/industrial street, which requires 60 ft.
of right-of-way in accordance to the Thoroughfare Plan. A 10 ft. right-of-way
dedication is required along Warren St. Likewise, North Brook St. is classified as a
local residential street, which requires 50 ft. of right-of-way. A 10 ft. right-of-way
dedication is required along North Brook St. (Planning)
d. Please show all building footprints on this lot and provide utility slips (Planning)
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 6 DECEMBER 11,2013
e. Please clarify property owner information. 204 Burnett St., 200 Burnett St. and 1210
Warren are all shown to be owned by Donald Lee Melton according to the Wichita
County Appraisal District. (Planning)
f. The site is served by public water and sewer. (Public Works)
g. Please provide 10 ft. utility easements along the frontages of adjacent streets.
(Public Works)
h. The "Floodplain in and out" label on the plat at the corner of Warren and North
Burnett appears to be labeled backwards, please check label. (Public Works)
6. Wichita Falls Business Park, Lot 4 (December 2013)
a. Every new lot must have a lot and block number. Please add a block number for Lot
4. (Planning)
b. Show city limit lines and label "in" and "out". Please provide this information on the
plat map and the vicinity map. (Planning)
c. Planning staff has proposed an address for Fisher Rd. Please notify staff of future
proposed subdivision to alleviate addressing problems. (Planning)
d. Please place the Director of Public Works signature certificate before the Planning
and Zoning Commission and Secretary signature certificate. (Planning)
e. Provide utility slips. (Planning)
f. The site is served by public sewer and water. (Public Works)
g. Please provide a legal description under the Title of the Plat. (Public Works)
Mr. Martin made a motion to approve the consent agenda; seconded by Mr. Kidwell. The motion
carried.
V. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Case C 13-45 (tabled from the November 13, 2013 meeting)
Residential carport in the front setback
2503 9th Street
This case was tabled from the November Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to
provide notification to the property owner, Roger Pollan, and his agent, Joseph Rodriquez, to
attend the December meeting in order to answer questions and concerns from the Commission.
Reading from the staff report, Ms. Coleman stated: The house at 2503 9th St. is a Prairie
architectural style, built in 1925. This architectural style is characterized by a low pitched roof
with projecting eaves, brick walls, porch piers, and typically two-story.
This property was featured in the Touring Wichita Falls History: A Journey Through Time
brochure published in September 2010, which featured local historic properties. As noted in the
brochure, this property is in the Fillmore Neighborhood and is not protected by historic
designation.
During the November 13th Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, some of the
commissioners expressed concern for allowing a carport to be installed, which would alter the
historic character of the property and disqualify it for any future historic designation. After
further research, staff discovered the property owner opted to forego pursuit of historic
designation and move forward with his carport request.
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 7 DECEMBER 11,2013
During initial discussions, Mr. Rodriguez provided a proposed design for the carport, which
would include brick columns to blend in with the architectural style of the house. Staff was not
able to obtain a copy of this design for inclusion with the staff report; therefore, staff requested
Mr. Rodriguez or Mr. Pollan attend the December 11th P&Z meeting to provide details.
There are no properties within the 200 ft. notification area with carports in the front setbacks.
Staff notified seventeen (17) surrounding property owners within this notification area for the
November meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z). Zero (0) responses were
received.
Ms. Coleman asked if the applicant or his contractor were in the audience. Chairman Taylor
noted they were not in attendance.
Chairman Taylor stated it appears the owner wishes to proceed with the carport request. Mr.
Kidwell stated he does not agree with constructing a carport at that residence. Chairman Taylor
commented he has not seen anything that would change his opinion regarding approving this
request. Mr. Kidwell stated there is a garage in the rear of the property with ample space for
parking.
Chairman Taylor noted the carport would be metal with brick columns. Mr. Browning asked if
there were carports in the general vicinity which might be outside the notification area. Staff and
the members did not know of any carports.
Mr. Graham asked how many carports have been turned down by this Commission. Chairman
Taylor noted a carport request was recently tabled based on it being constructed from metal.
He commented that if it had a hipped roof resembling the architecture of the house, it possibly
would have been approved. Mr. Kidwell noted there was neighborhood objection and issues
with deed restrictions.
Mr. Hegglund stated as legal advisor for this Commission for the last decade, carports were
denied for reasons of aesthetics and neighborhood appropriateness. Most carports were
approved but this Commission also has the authority to deny carport requests.
Mr. Wingo stated his objection to this carport was the property also has rear entry capabilities
with an existing garage. He also reminded the Commission that none of the neighbors
responded to the mailing.
Chairman Taylor asked if there was a gate to the rear garage in the photograph. Ms. Coleman
replied it was behind the trailer. Mr. Browning remarked that approving a carport in a
neighborhood without any [carports] sets a precedence for more carport applications from
neighbors. Chairman Taylor stated this carport could be constructed so it would be aesthetically
pleasing for the neighborhood.
Mr. Graham stated that he objected to the carport in November; however, he does believe in
private property rights if there is not opposing evidence. Those rights should be respected.
Chairman Taylor noted from the appearance of this house, it appears the homeowner maintains
his property and would probably have a nice looking carport.
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 8 DECEMBER 11,2013
Ms. Coleman asked Ms. Gagne, Planning Administrator and Wichita Falls Local Historic
Preservation Officer, if she had any comments regarding the historical significance of this
property. Ms. Gagne stated the Landmark Commission considers issues, such as carports and
additions, when nominating homes for landmark status. This home was identified in the Fillmore
neighborhood as having historically significant value. It has not been designated at this time.
Additions and structures, such as a carport, can change the architectural character of the
home. A future homeowner might be interested in landmark designation and a carport would
invalidate the property unless it was built to certain standards, such as brick columns,
architectural style resembling the house. The Landmark Commission has concerns regarding
carports because they do not meet the basic design standards. A porte-cochere over the
existing driveway on the side of the house would be preferred. Chairman Taylor inquired about
the homeowner supplying a photograph of the proposed brick columns; Ms. Gagne stated the
house is not designated but those options could be considered by P&Z. There have been three
(3) properties in this area recognized by the Wichita County Heritage Society with preservation
awards based on them being preserved in an appropriate, historic manner. If there are
inappropriate changes to this home, it could be forever altered.
Chairman Taylor stated it was unfortunate the homeowner or his contractor did not attend this
meeting in order to obtain more information. Chairman Taylor stated one option would be to
require brick columns. Mr. Hegglund stated if the Commission wanted to place conditions on
approval specifically for the potential of a landmark designation, it would require both planning
and legal staff's research.
Chairman Taylor asked the Commission how they felt about tabling this request until January.
Mr. Browning stated they had a month's notice about this meeting and are not in attendance.
Ms. Coleman urged the Commission to make a decision at this meeting. If the carport is denied,
the applicant can reapply in six (6) months.
Mr. Graham asked Ms. Gagne if a metal roof would meet the criteria for landmark designation.
Ms. Gagne replied, according to the design guidelines, the carport roof must be similar to or
mirror the materials on the main structure. She stated she did not think the home had a metal
roof. Mr. Martin noted the garage in the back has a metal roof. Ms. Gagne stated in a historic
district there are structures in existence prior to the designation date - not all buildings will meet
the age/ architectural requirements. However, the Landmark Commission does encourage any
new alteration/ addition meets the design guidelines. Some properties are classified as non-
contributing because there have been inappropriate alterations; others are considered
contributing to the historic character of the district.
Chairman Taylor stated, when there is no response from the neighbors it appears they do not
object. Mr. Martin noted that another homeowner could easily remove the carport if they wanted
to be considered for landmark status.
Mr. Martin made a motion to approve this carport request; Mr. Browning seconded. The vote
was five (5) in favor and three (3) opposed. The carport was approved.
2. Case C 13-47
Request to locate a professional office of 4,744 sq. ft. in a Limited Office (LO)
zoning district
2200 Harrison Street
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 9 DECEMBER 11,2013
Ms. Coleman stated this request is to locate a professional office of 4,744 sq. ft. at 2200
Harrison Street which is in a Limited Office zoning district. She stated she would like to present
the commentary from the staff report for this case for the record.
On June 14, 1989 R. Knox Egan submitted a request before the Planning and Zoning
Commission (P&Z) to rezone 2200 Harrison St. from a Multi-Family Residential (MFR) zoning
district to a Limited Office zoning district. After a thorough assessment of traffic generated by
Harrison St., a 60 ft. major collector street, the proximity to the Kell Freeway as well as the
compatibility of existing land uses in the area, the P&Z Commission determined the rezoning of
2200 Harrison St. from MFR to LO would meet the goals of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
and recommended approval to the City Council; the rezoning request was approved by City
Council on July 18, 1989. P&Z stated since the floor area of the existing structure [for the
proposed office space] would exceed 1,200 sq. ft., a conditional use permit would be required.
On August 9, 1989 Knox and Evelyn Egan submitted a conditional use permit application
requesting permission to exceed the 1,200 sq. ft. requirement for office space in an LO zoning
district to establish a professional office space of 5,864 sq. ft. Concerns regarding
neighborhood appeal, aesthetics, parking, traffic, and landscaping were expressed by the
surrounding neighbors and discussed at the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing. Based on
these concerns, the following conditions of approval were placed upon the land with an
approval of the conditional use permit request:
1. The existing trees along the south property line should not be removed. The parking
area [shown on the site plan] should be moved north by a few feet if required, in order to
save these trees.
2. No parking will be allowed between the front of the structure and Harrison St.
3. The six parking spaces immediately adjacent to Harrison St. must be deleted.
4. Landscaping is required at a rate of 1 tree per 40 linear ft. of street frontage. In this
case, twelve (12) trees are required.
5. Signs must meet the LO district requirement.
The permit section detailing the conditions of approval for the 1989 conditional use permit
stated: NOTE: A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL IS VALID FOR 1 YEAR UNLESS A
BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED AND CONSTRUCTION IS ONGOING.
Now, in December 2013, the current property owner [Richard Schlomach] has permitted the
applicant, Joe D. Bloodworth to submit a request for a conditional use permit to once again
establish an office space exceeding 1,200 sq. ft. The existing structure [currently being used as
a residence but proposed as office space] consists of a 1.5 story main living area constructed in
1929 and 1944 with 4,744 sq. ft. and an accessory carriage house constructed in 1983 with 560
sq. ft. Bill McGregor, the agent for the applicant informed staff the office space being proposed
will only occur within the primary structure. Therefore, the recommended parking stated in the
staff recommendations is based only on the 4,744 sq. ft. of the primary structure.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since a building permit was never pursued within one year of the August 1989 conditional use
permit approval, another request has been submitted. After a thorough review of the history of
this request as well as assessing the overall character of the area, staff concurs with many of
the previous staff recommendations regarding the area and the overall compatibility of the
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 10 DECEMBER 11,2013
request pending a few additional conditions of approval. Staff recommends approval of this
request to establish a professional office space exceeding 1,200 sq. ft. with the following
conditions:
1. The existing trees along the south property line shall remain. The proposed parking
along the south property line should be moved up a few feet to allow for this natural
barrier to remain.
2. Per Section 4615 B of the Zoning Ordinance, if there is an existing privacy fence on an
adjacent property that is determined as sufficient to accomplish the intent of this
ordinance and structurally adequate, a buffer/6 ft. privacy fence shall not be required.
The existing fence appears to be sufficient.
3. No parking will be allowed between the front of the primary structure and Harrison St.
The proposed site plan shows 40 parking spaces total. Based on the existing building
footprints on the property, staff recommends the 10 spaces shown south of the carriage
house and the carport as well as the 6 spaces north of the existing drive aisle be
removed. Per the Parking Ordinance, office space only requires 1 space per 300 sq. ft.
of the gross floor area, which is 16 spaces accounting only for the primary structure; 18
spaces if we count the primary structure and carriage house [5,304 sq. ft.]. The 24
spaces proposed along the south property line, but north of the existing tree line should
be sufficient for the proposed use.
4. A revised site and landscaping plan showing all existing property features, the proposed
new 24-space parking facility, as well as the existing and proposed trees must be
provided prior to issuance of a building permit and certificate of occupancy. The
perimeter landscaping requirement of 1 tree per 40 linear ft. of frontage may be met with
the existing mature trees on the property; otherwise 12 trees must be provided.
Additionally, any parking facility with more than 20 parking spaces must provide 1
landscape island per 20 parking stalls and that island must contain 1 canopy tree. All of
the abovementioned details must be provided on a revised site plan.
5. The property must be platted before the parking facility can be constructed.
6. The property should be adequately screened and any lighting should be directed away
from adjacent residential uses.
7. Signs must meet the Limited Office (LO) zoning district requirements.
Eight (8) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One (1) responded in favor;
one (1) responded opposed; and, one (1) responded undecided.
Mr. McGregor stated he owned the property next door (2113 Kell Blvd.) and he is the selling
agent for Mr. Bloodworth who has a contract on the property which is contingent on this
request. He is purchasing the property because it can be a residence or office. Mr. McGregor
presented a brief history of zoning on this property since 1989 when he appeared before this
Commission representing this same property. He noted the concerns of the neighbors are the
same concerns presented in 1989.
Mr. John Stephenson, 2018 Victory, stated his property is across the street from the subject
property. He stated this area is the gateway to the County Club neighborhood. The surrounding
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 11 DECEMBER 11,2013
businesses on Harrison have maintained the character and personality of that area. It is one of
the most visited and highly viewed and valued property areas in Wichita Falls. It is an asset to
the community. This property is the front door to this [Country Club] area. This is a historical
neighborhood and should be respected.
He stated his concerns were:
1. Trees
2. Exterior elevation of any and all structures.
3. Historical aspects should remain — the exterior should remain as it is. The exterior
should not be commercialized. The front of the structure should be visible. No privacy
fencing in front of the structure, including a chain link fence.
4. No lighting facing the residents. No night time flood lighting on the building or the
property.
5. No front parking lot spaces.
6. No loud speakers.
7. Business hours from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.
Ms. Donna Long, 2019 Ardath, stated her home was directly across the street from this
property. She stated she did not have strong objections for offices to be located in this
structure. She urged the Commission to read her objections stated in her response. Her main
concerns were:
1. The exterior of this property should be preserved.
2. The number of offices [people working] in this building.
3. Parking.
4. The swimming pool which has deteriorated.
5. Possible entrance to the property off Kell frontage road.
Mr. McGregor stated most of the issues Mr. Stephenson had were covered by staff's conditions
with the exception of the business hours. Ms. Coleman stated LO hours were no earlier than
6:00 a.m. and no later than 11:00 p.m. Mr. McGregor stated the house has been in Mr.
Bloodworth's wife's family and they have a sentimental connection toward keeping the structure
well maintained. Mr. Bloodworth wanted to make sure he could use the house for offices as well
as a residence.
Chairman Taylor stated if this structure becomes an office, there will be Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements as well as complying with the City's commercial code for
the electrical system. Mr. McGregor stated Mr. Bloodworth is aware he must comply with City
building codes.
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 12 DECEMBER 11,2013
Regarding the parking, Chairman Taylor stated he thought the parking in the front of the
structure [towards Harrison] detracts from the property's appeal and residential character. Ms.
Coleman displayed the original 1989 site plan for this property which depicted two (2) handicap
stalls with six (6) spaces located north of the driving aisle and ten (10) spaces to the south.
Staff is recommending these front spaces be removed; however to meet ADA requirements
there would need to be one (1) handicap space and an entrance ramp. She noted the structure
would be required to be handicap accessible if used for commercial purposes.
Mr. Long stated parking could be in the rear which would preserve the front of the property.
Chairman Taylor noted the rear has a large area for parking. The issue for an ingress from Kell
to the property was discussed as well as various parking situations. Mr. Long noted the current
traffic problems with the Kell frontage road and the apartment complex. Mr. Hegglund stated
considering the City's past experience with TxDOT, another entry from the Kell frontage road
would probably not be approved.
Mr. Combs inquired about the zoning; Ms. Coleman stated it is currently zoned as Limited
Office but is being used as a residence. She explained if the applicant was requesting an office
of 1,200 sq. ft. or less, it would be permitted without the Commissions approval. This request is
for a commercial use of 4,744 sq. ft. which requires a conditional use permit.
Mr. Long presented different scenarios for commercial use of this structure. Mr. Browning
stated there is always the possibility of a future owner converting this property to commercial
offices requiring more parking thus creating more traffic.
Mr. McGregor noted if the parking is restricted, it will also restrict the commercial use of the
building. Medical offices require more parking spaces than a commercial office. Ms. Coleman
stated this conditional use permit would be specific to this request. In the future, if a medical
office was considered for the structure, another conditional use permit would be required. This
Commission has leverage to protect the structure by limiting the type of office and its required
parking limitations. Mr. Graham asked for examples to be presented. Ms. Coleman displayed
the zoning ordinance list of the Limited Office uses as well as read them, for the record. Mr.
Graham asked if there could be a high density use in that structure. Ms. Coleman stated it
would be a possibility but the size of the office as well as the parking might be a limitation.
Ms. Gagne addressed Mr. Browning's issue and Mr. Graham's concerns by stating if this
conditional use is approved for the 4,744 sq. ft., it would only trigger another conditional use
request if the office use required more parking. It would require review by Building Inspection. If
the speculative use being considered at this meeting should change in the future, it would not
require additional conditional use approval if the parking was sufficient for that use.
NOTE:Some statements were unable to be deciphered due to various people from the
audience having conversations at the same time.
Mr. Browning asked how long this property has been on the market; Mr. McGregor replied 3 to
4 months. It was a difficult property to sell because it is isolated and not part of a neighborhood.
Mr. Browning noted the longer a structure is vacant, the more it deteriorates.
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 13 DECEMBER 11, 2013
Mr. Browning asked if the parking could be limited to 16 spaces with all being located in the
back of the property behind the structure. He also stated no parking should be permitted in the
front of the structure. Chairman Taylor explained this suggestion in detail to the audience.
Ms. Coleman stated a revised site plan has been requested from the applicant that illustrates
the parking.
Chairman Taylor made a motion to table this case until the January 8, 2014 meeting. There was
no second for this motion.
Mr. Browning asked if the seven (7) staff recommendations along with the requirement for a
maximum of 16 parking spaces was being considered.
In response to Mr. Stephenson's request to change the hours of operation for a business, Mr.
Hegglund responded the hours of 6:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. are set by a City Council approved
ordinance and it is not a legal request to change them.
Chairman Taylor closed the meeting for discussion by the public.
Mr. Kidwell stated he felt this is a good use for the property. Chairman Taylor agreed stating it
is a beautiful property.
Chairman Taylor made a motion to amend the original motion by requiring approval of staff's
seven (7) recommendations as well as permitting not more than 16 parking spaces all of which
must be located behind the rear of the main building [not the front line of the building]. Mr.
Browning seconded. The motion carried.
Mr. Kidwell made a motion to approve this request with amendments and staff
recommendations; Mr. Graham seconded. The motion carried.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
1. 2014 Members' Training Session
Ms. Gagne explained City staff along with the Legal Dept. will present a training session for all
P&Z members. It was decided by the Commission to have this two hour session after the next
meeting on January 8, 2014.
2. 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 3:40 p.m.
P&Z COMMISSION PAGE 14 DECEMBER 11,2013
R. C. Taylor,TI/ri.
Z Di- Og W
Date
-p_. s &L.__
ATTEST:
01 -Ca - IL
aren Gagne Dept. of ommunity Development Date