Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 04/13/2016COMMISSION A HI 1 , X016
This ti is being taped and there is icr to record statements made from the
audience.
.rk
d. Please silence all call phone ringers during the meeting. If it is necessary for you to
have a it conversation _ during the meeting, _ please use the hallway outside - this room.
It. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one from the i ence wished to address the i ii .
Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Jeff Browning introduced a motion rope i nutes of the March 9, 2016 meeting.
Mr. Anthony Inman seconded the tion. The minutes _ with a unanimous .
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
The Plats i recommended approval of the following subject to the r
Conditions r l for preliminary and final plats specific conditions list"
Standard ii l for Preliminary t
Provide ili ty and drainage easements it ili companies
Director of Public Works.
Submit water and sewer plans; street; sidewalk; drainage l to the
Director of Public Works and water plans to the Fire Marshall. Drainage plans
must be complete include impact on surrounding property include
detention iliti required y Director of Public Works.
Coordinate street lighting plan ' and r i utility easements as required
Director f Traffic & Transportation.
Submit four ' copies 'f corrected preliminary plat to 1 i Division before
final platting.
Note: Approval of a t ti development r i
i t i- Ordinance.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
1. Canyon Trails
property a. The is served by public r. Public sewer lines will need to be
extended to ll lots. ( i r
b. All access points state roadways shall be approved .( )
The Plats it recommended - l of the following I t t to t
'Conditions of Approval for final to and any specific 'conditions list
Standard n iti of Approval for Final Plats
f
�i
April 13.2016
Mr. Christopher Guess presented the application to replat 2 residential I t located in
r t
Single Family Residential (SF-2) zone. Staff notified 14 surrounding property Demers
(1 parcels); r in , i opposition, 1 i n- opinion/undecided.
There responses received from i the ti i" ti area. Mr. Guess said
staff is recommending f the plat.
Mr. Martin asked if t applicant in there t to
represent r. Martin if there in i wished
to there
Mr. Martin opened the ti to i i the i i. Mr. Rick Graham
stated t all the neighbors r in favor and one was undecided. ti'
taken to a vote i unanimously.
2. Case P 16-04
Glen,
Request to replat 2900 South Shepherds 2902 South Shepherds Glen,
Redlands Court ® Sikes i i , Lots 35, 37, 38 Block 3 and a
tract of land out of the J.A. Scott Survey No. 7 A-295.
Mr. Anthony Inman made a motion to r ove. Mr. Jeff Browni
Mr. Christopher Guess presented the li ti to replat residential parcels to x
existing ' lots in i t e Family Residential ( 4) zone. Staff notified rr i
property owners (36 parcels); 4 responded in favor, 0 in ii , and 1 with
opinion/undecided, r r no responses received r outside the tiff ti
�:t r
area.
Mr. Guess recommended approval of the plat.
r. i i t i i n t t to
represent _ r . Martin asked if t r the i wished
to there r
Mr. Martin opened the ti to i i the "i i. There
discussion. to - carried i' i .
3. Case C16-04
conditional
Request for a it
front setback in i i _ zoning i t
Mr. Barney Brock ti r Krystal James seconded.
r. ri t r presented application allow r in t required front
setback 1511 Cole Street. The requested r port would be located in i t it
Residential ( 4') zone, and be 20 ft. x 18 ft. The distance the r t.,
distance and the the interior i line is ft. i. r r properties '
including ' t ) i to that had a carport within the r setback
area. Staff notified surrounding r operty owners ( parcels); r i fir,
in opposition, it opinion/undecided. There _ _ were responses received _
from t l the tlf l tl area.
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 6 Apra[ 13; 2016
Mr. Martin asked if the commission the ii t to f r the matter to if in
y
1�i3�,a zr.%
inspections ifi do were to the tr t r . Mr.
McKechnle explained that the motion, as it t , is to ry conditional 9 and
that the i compliance it i ordinance. Jerry
Beaver it compliance . enforced r e they to approve t
conditional r. Guess explained were to iti l use for
the i P code enforcement could site the li t if they it to
become code compliant. Mr. Martin stated that he did issues approving
the conditional use and leavi issues of the tr r itself up to it in
inspections.
Mr. Rick Graham stated inspector Mike Roche visited i the t "s failed , t
structure, and gave a verbal t op work order. Mr. Martin clarified that it was before the
commission _ to i r the set-back of the structure, not the tr t r itself. Mr.
McKechnle agreed this the Browning _ stated it would 'f
t inspectors t _ commission _ r the ii r. Guess added
that, ' even at the end of this process, the tr t r e would need to permitted.
Mr. Martin asked if there ! i the t r. Mr. Graham asked if
the staff's r ti regarding lu structural integrity
would be included in the iti l use. Mr. McKechnie clarified t this ' included
as part of the proposed _ conditional use.
The motion was taken to vote carried unanimously.
Mr. Martin clarified for the lip t that they r i t it
tta?t,t��S, �sr
building inspections.
®
conditional l l Road to allow a carport in the
required front in i i ly 2 (SF-2) zoning district.
Mr. Anthony Inman made the i approve. ' Krystal James seconded.
Mr. Matthew Prouty presented the li ti for a 20 ft. x 24 ft. carport proposed
be constructed in the required r t set back of a Single-Family ( ) zoning i ri t,
carport The proposed i f. 9 i. from the front property line, and 10 ft.
i. from the interior side r i. There are properties iti ft. that have a
within t required r r t five (notification ' " letters
sent within the 200 _. notification area; responded in v$ 3 in i i , and 0 with
no opinion/undecided. r ) responses were received i
notification area; 1 response in favor, 2 in opposition, and 0 with ' no opinion/undecided.
vl i establish r t" til expansion carports
neighborhood t remained r encroachments within the r setback. Staff
taken has noted and _- into consideration neighborhood ii from within i
of the ft. tifi i Specific iti r in controls in
the `r f design standards to protect xii ng home owners from future of
varying qua_li size.
Mr. Prouty recommended roval of the c ro t 2318 Rockhill
f ari s
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 8 Appal 13; 2016
-(s
Mr. Jerry Beaver asked if the li t in ' iti within the .
<iuN.
notification r. Both applicants " fir they r. Mr. Martin asked for clarification
that there were four in r and three in i °r . Mr. Prouty confirmed this the
case within the tifi i area. " Mr. Graham stated it was rare, but they had
voted i t these proposed conditional uses before.
Mr. Martin asked if r discussion. There t.
The Motion taken to rri " it i t in
opposition. i opposition r r. i Graham r. t I , .
Barney .
5. Case C 16-07
Request for a conditional use at , , 111h Street '
Holliday in required parking r dialysis
center in Commercial zoning i i
"r. Rick Graham made the motion yr r. Anthony
r® Loren Shapiro r li i for a request for a conditional use to ll
an adjustment i required ifr a dialysis n r in a General Commercial ( )
zoning i ritm - Staff sent out 17 notification letters; 7 responded in favor, 0 in
opposition, and 0 with opinion/undecided, The alip , Dr. Reddy, proposes
new 9,000 square foot dialysis clinic it ti " stations. ili will employ 13
t' . The site I parking r points from 11th
Street and Holliday Street. The parking ratio t to 1 parking space for v
�z���d`�5
230.77 square feet of floor space for the proposed clinic (9,000/39).
Dialysis clinics r classified i t office or clinic in the ni ng ordinan
zoning ordinance, under Appendix A of the city's code of ordinances provides
regulations for i. i Parking l requires '
(1) parking for r t of r floor r medical is r
clinics. 9,000 square foot dialysis ii requires ii parking
(9,000/200). Therefore, the r oposed site plan -. is r i of the ini
required.
Staff requested the i t provide 3 existing i t i clinics sufficiently functioning
with reduced parking to t i it I applicant
example dialysis clinics from , t _ Weaerford, Bedford, ' iti ,
staff r medical off ices/medical i i t ti nt parking 'requirements in r
cities r ed standards wit is i I.
Planning"r i the three sample dialysis lii to tr i if the similar uses could
justify reduction of Dr. Reddy's facili r oposed on the subject property.
sample dialysis li is s average rate f_ parking is 1 space for every 275 square feet of
floor space based on parking i for the lease space/standalone facilities. Staff
reviewed also iti in Texas comparing requirements wi 1 it
Falls. The average r of parking required for an outpatient facility i I i
clinic r i for every 261.33 r t of floor area for the 11 cities
reviewed. t cities require r than u r t for every parking
medical clinics/off Ices or outpatient facilities.
?' '__
COMMISSION 16 Apri113,
display to u r e safe clear a pedestrian access and allowance for city maintenance
N�jt
sidewalks.
In response, staff analyzed ordinances from comparison or benchmark cities, including
Abilene, Amarillo, San Angelo, Waco, and Round Rock, Texas. Additionally, staff
reviewed ti data ri Planning i ti ). The
division r
planning l i property t, i works, building
inspection, t, legal department in composing proposed
_
outdoor display regulations. draft provisions for outdoor display I so provi
'
r comment to the Downtown Wichita I Development, . Organization.
Mr. Shapiro recommended approval of the r ordinance li i regulations
for outdoor display.
Mr. Martin asked what the i B liability l there r
emergency is items left out on display. r. Mckechnie
stated there ul _ liability to i, and this included in the
ordinance _- the encroachment ' agreement. Mr. Martin if it l
be up to Code Enforcement b ensure that items out on display met with
requirements of the r i r. Shapiro _ confirmed this I the case. Mr. Jeff
`
Browning if the r in regulate t items could displayed, .
ri items
Shapiro advised the F t
where items could .
Mr. Martin asked if there i ordinance r items being left
overnight. Ms. Rita Miller of Code Enforcement _ explained items are f
outside r extended periods of time they c different r iris c violation called
rubbish and trash. the ordinance does not allow items to be left out after business
hours, and the items proposed to stored _t i de would be presented of the
encroachment agreement.
Mr. Jerry Beaver stated that the l item is j ti believes this
be extremely i i It t- enforce. Ms. Miller agreed that it i d be a challenge to
enforce and explained in items discarded outside the i t display ,
agreed as iti r_ t agreement, could help t i
items are to be considered rubbish r
Mr. Anthony Inman for clarification that the r storage area i discussed
was referring private r the t' own sidewalks. Mr. Shapiro confirmed this
was correct. Mr. Rick - Graham asked if this was modeled after other cities
o
Dallas r t r' it t it f I after outdoor dining
_ ® purpose to r e there is r of
r i t t
agreement with t i.
Mr. Jeff Browning t recourse the i currently if someone is t i
things ' t sidewalks. r. it t it l l it is
safety issue, there r r regulations t enforce. r. McKechnie stated it is
the city's right of way and any items could . Mr. Anthony Inman asked if
$250 fee r r/t _ t remain i until t property
Mr. it - stated that, because the r t depends on the i
type of display, each new tenant would need a new agreement. Mr. Martin
whether t r t would be with the tenant or t it i r. Mr. - McKechnie
explained the r t would be with the tenant, - but the building n I also
«.
required to i off on the r t.
P & Z COMMISSION RAGE 11 Aprll 13; 2016