Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 09/14/2016MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION September 14, 2016 PRESENT: Barney Brock • members Jack Browne •Aitemelo#2 Jeff Browning • Jerry Beaver • Rick Graham • Anthony Inman • Krystal James • Daniel Leslie • Rodney Martin, Chairperson • Cayce Wendeborn • Mark McBumett . Ex officio Stephen Santellana • Coundi Lieson James McKechnie, Assist. City Attorney II • Legal fapt. Karen Gagne, Planning Administrator • city staff Aaron Hudman, Planner III Christopher Guess, Planner it • Kyle Caskey, Planning Technician • Leslie Dunn, Senior Administrative Clerk Rick Branum, Engineer • public works ABSENT: Anthony Carlisle • Ahemate #1 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson, Mr. Rodney Martin, at 2:00 p.m. Chairperson Martin proceeded to make the following comments: a. This meeting is being televised 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. P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 2 September 14, 2016 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 Mrs, Cayce Wendeborn introduced a motion to approve the minutes of the August 10, 2016 meeting. Mr. Jack Browne seconded the motion, The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote. IV. CONSENT AGENDA Chairperson Martin asked if there was any item that needed to be brought down from the consent agenda to the regular agenda. Mr. Christopher Guess stated that the final plat for French Country Meadow Lot 1, Block 1 would need to be brought down to the regular agenda. The Plats Committee recommended approval of the following final plats subject to the Standard Conditions of Approval for preliminary and final plats 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. FINAL PLATS 1 Final Plat— Bellevue Addition Lots 2-C & 2-D, Block 12 a) The property is served by public water and sewer. (Public Works) P & z COMMISSION PARE 3 ber 14, 2016 b) Additional easements required. Biggs & Mathews has been contacted. (Oncor) c) All access points to state roadways shall be approved by TxDOT. (TxDOT) d) Provide utility slips. (Planning) 2 Final Plat— Burlington Call Field Industrial District Lots 1-A& 1-B, Block 12 a) The property is served by public water and sewer. (Public Works) b) Not legible may need additional easements. (Oncor) c) All access points to state roadways shall be approved by TxDOT. (TxDOT) d) Provide utility slips. (Planning) Ms. Krystal James introduced a motion to approve the consent agenda of the September 14, 2016 meeting. Mr. Rick Graham seconded the motion. The consent agenda was approved with a unanimous vote with the exception of the French Country Meadow Final Plat. V. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Case P 16-09 Request to replat (3602 & 3604 Glenwood Avenue) Lots 10 & 11, Block 2, Willow Brook Estates, Section 4. Mrs. Cayce Wendeborn made a motion to approve. Mr. Jeff Browning seconded. Mr. Christopher Guess presented the application to replat Lots 10 & 11, Block 2, Willow Brook Estates, Section 4. He stated the property was zoned Single -Family 2 Residential (SF -2), and the address was 3602 & 3604 Glenwood Avenue. Staff sent 24 notifications and received 4 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 with no opinion/undecided. Mr. Guess stated staff had listed their concerns upon initial review of the plat. One of the primary concerns listed on the initial set of conditions was requesting the applicant to ensure all plats submitted were signed and sealed per the State of Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying rules and the Subdivision and Development Regulations as outlined in the City's code of ordinances. Mr. Guess stated they requested the surveyor return the plat with the concerns addressed by September 6, 2016, the overarching concern being the lack of a signature and seal. He stated that Planning staff had not received a revised copy of the plat with the conditions addressed. Because the plat is in conflict with state and municipal regulations, staff recommended denial of Case P 16-09. Chairperson Martin asked if the applicant was in attendance and wished to speak. Mr. Brian Salter, the professional land surveyor on the project, spoke on behalf of the owners, William and Katherine McGregor. Mr. Salter stated that he believed there had been a misinterpretation of the rule regarding the requirement to sign and seal the plat. He noted the state requires the signing and sealing of "final" documents, and in his interpretation the documents are not final until they are approved by the City. Mr. Salter stated he had, in the past, always submitted his plats without a signature. He stated that as the City reviews the plats, they generate a list of comments that need to be P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 4 September 14 2016 addressed, and this is why he considers the plats to be, at this point, not a final document. Mr. Salter stated that he was willing to start signing and sealing the plats going forward, but in this case he had been out of town when requested to do so. He stated staff had informed him on September 9th they would be recommending denial of the plat. At that time he offered to come in and sign and seal the plat, but was told not to do so. Mr. Salter stated he did not know why the condition referring to the surveyor's certification was an issue of concern because it is found at the bottom right corner of the plat. Mr. Salter also addressed the condition requesting plats be submitted in black and white by stating he had submitted the initial plat in color because multiple other cities he worked with required color. Mr. Salter stated he had met this condition by providing a follow up plat in black and white. Mr. Salter pointed out that condition number two stating the property was not served by public water and sewer was in error. He affirmed the property was served by public water and sewer. Mr. Salter stated that, with the exception of signing and sealing the plat, all other conditions listed had been addressed. He requested approval of the plat and stated that if the Commission and staff still felt there were comments that needed to be addressed, he would like to request a conditional approval pending fulfillment of the those obligations, or possibly tabling the item to a future meeting. Chairperson Martin asked if there was anyone else in the audience that wished to speak, and there were none. Chairperson Martin opened the motion to discussion among the commission. Mr. Jeff Browning asked if Mr. Salter had been correct in his remark that condition two was in error. Mr. Guess stated this was correct, condition two had been included in error. He stated because the overarching issue of the signing and sealing of the plat had not been addressed, the review process had been stymied, resulting in the mistaken inclusion of comment two. Chairperson Martin asked if tabling the case and allowing the applicant time to address the unresolved concerns would cause any issues. Mr. Guess explained if a decision to approve or deny of a plat is not made within 30 days of submittal, the plat is automatically approved as is. Mr. James McKechnie, legal counsel, confirmed that was the case. Chairperson Martin asked if the Commission could conditionally approve the plat pending resolution of the remaining concerns. Mr. McKechnie confirmed that could be done. Mrs. Cayce Wendebom asked if, aside from the signing and sealing of the plat, all the other conditions had already been met. Mr. Guess stated the issue of the signature and seal was the only condition in the staff report that remained to be met. He stated, though the plats committee did supply staff with a comprehensive review, there was an understanding throughout the review process that an overarching condition had not been met. Mr. Guess stated, because the plat had not been signed and sealed, he did not feel comfortable with conditional approval of the plat. P & 2 COMMISSION PAGE 5 September 14, 2016 Chairperson Martin asked Mr. Guess if he had not been able to pass the plat through all the necessary channels because of the missing signature and seal. Mr. Guess clarified that when he ran the plat through the necessary channels, rather than receiving the "all clear' typical prior to presentation of a plat, those entities referenced the missing signature and seal. Chairperson Martin recognized Rick Branum, Civil Engineer in the Public Works Department, who requested to address the Commission. Mr. Branum offered to give the Commission a little background regarding the state law requiring the signing and sealing of plats. He stated there was a follow up section to the portion of the Texas Administrative Code referenced in the staff report that had not been outlined. He stated this section allows for a professional land surveyor to submit documents to the public that are preliminary, as long as the plat is designated with a preliminary stamp. Mr. Branum stated that the only two cases that state law allows for plat submittal is when they are final, and signed and sealed by a surveyor, or released stamped and designated through specific language as preliminary. He stated that all surveyors who submit plats to the City are required to follow state law by signing and sealing their plats. He stated that it was the shared opinion of the Public Works Department that it would not be appropriate to approve a plat that had not first been approved by the surveyor submitting it. Chairperson Martin asked Mr. McKechnie if the Commission were to deny the plat, would the applicant be able to reapply and make the deadline before the next meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. McKechnie stated that he could do so, and advised this might be a prudent route because it ensured the plat would go back to the Engineering Department for a second review and ensure there were no other issues that remained unaddressed. Chairperson Martin agreed, and stated he did not want to set a precedent making it easier to subvert protocols set forth by planning staff. Mr. Graham asked Mr. Salter if the denial of the plat would cause any significant delays to his project. Mr. Salter stated the delay would be based on the time it would take to reapply and go through the Planning & Zoning process, likely around 30 days. Mr. Salter reiterated for the Commission that the plat had been through the initial review process and the comments, other than the signing and sealing of the plat, had all been addressed. He stated he had been prepared to sign and seal the plat on Friday, September 901, but was told not to do so during a phone conversation with Mr. Guess and Mr. Aaron Hudman at around 9:00 am, despite receiving an email giving him until noon that day to submit the signed and sealed plat. Mr. Hudman clarified that the email stated that Mr. Salter had until 12:00 pm to withdraw the plat, or staff would proceed to the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend the plat for denial. Mr. Salter stated it was his belief that tabling the plat would constitute an action on the plat, and would not lead to the automatic approval of the plat after the 30 days had elapsed. Chairperson Martin asked if staff would be required to resend the notifications for this plat. Mr. Guess stated yes, were the plat to be resubmitted, it would have to be treated like a new plat and the notifications would need to be resent. He stated that when the email was sent advising Mr. Salter he could either withdraw the plat or staff would be recommending denial, staff was at the end of their timetable for Planning and Zoning preparations and the deadline for submitting a signed and sealed plat had �' passed. Mr. Guess also referred the Commission to a supplemental document that had P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 6 September 14, 2016 been distributed, pointing to another instance in June of 2016 where staff made comments on another of Mr. Salter's plats addressing the same concern of signing and sealing plats. Mrs. Karen Gagne explained that over the last two to three years the Planning Division had worked diligently to make sure the platting process was as streamlined as possible. She stated there were multiple internal and external departments involved in making sure the plats are thoroughly reviewed. She stated these efforts were taken to enable the Planning & Zoning Commission to approve plats with as few conditions as possible. The Commission is required to take an action on the plats, and a plat is approved by default if official action is not taken. Streamlining the process has enabled staff to provide a cleaner, more thoroughly reviewed plat for the Commission's consideration, but in order for the process to work multiple reviews need to be done and staff has to adhere to a strict timeline. Mr. Graham asked what the difference was between a notification plat and a final plat. Mr. McKechnie explained that a final plat is a plat that has already been through the preliminary platting process. Mr. Guess elaborated that a notification plat is a plat involving land currently zoned Single -Family Residential, or rezoned residential within the last five years where the lot lines are being changed. He explained that notifications are sent in these cases in order to protect Single -Family neighborhoods from changes that may not conform to the current aesthetic, or density of the neighborhood. Mr. McKechnie clarified that a final plat and a notification plat can be one and the same. Mr. Anthony Inman asked about two plats in the consent agenda that were not signed and sealed. Mr. Guess stated the French Country Meadow plat had been requested to be brought down to the regular agenda for discussion for that reason. Mr. Guess stated the other plat being referred to had actually been signed and sealed. He explained that the 8W x 11" plats presented in the P&Z booklets were not exact duplicates of the actual plats, but scaled down visual representations. He stated, though the representation in the book did not show a seal and signature, the actual plat had been signed and sealed. Mr. Graham asked staff's opinion on the possible approval of an amended motion including conditions. Mrs. Gangn6 explained that staff had a process in place and it is difficult to perform all of the necessary processes within the timeline allotted if plats are not submitted correctly within the framework of that timeline. She stated it was important to make sure everyone was treated equally, and making an exception in this case could set a precedent. Mrs. Gagn6 stated if staff were to alter its process for one individual, it would open the door for similar alterations of protocol. Mr. Inman stated it didn't appear as though the applicant's timeline would be affected too much if the Commission were to accept staff's recommendation. Mr. Jeff Browning stated if the Commission were to vote in accordance with staffs recommendation they would be setting a precedent requiring plats submittal be done correctly. The motion was taken to a vote and failed by a vote of 8 to 1. 2. Final Plat — French Country Meadow Lot 1, Block 1 Mr. Dan Leslie made a motion to approve. Mrs. Cayce Wendeborn seconded. P & 2 COMMISSION PAGE 7 September 14, 2016 Mr. Guess presented the case to final plat French Country Meadow Lot 1, Block 1. He stated this plat had been pulled down to the Regular Agenda for similar reasons to the previous case. The plat was not signed and sealed when submitted, nor was it returned signed and sealed by the deadline for Planning and Zoning Commission preparation. Staff recommended denial of the plat. Chairperson Martin asked if the applicant wished to speak. Mr. Brian Salter stated that the situation was basically the same as the situation with the Willow Brook Estates plat. He stated this property was a larger 20 acre property used for agricultural purposes. He stated the property was outside the city limits, but within the ETJ. Chairperson Martin asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak, and there were none. Chairperson Martin opened the motion to discussion among the commission. Mr. Rick Graham asked if the plat were to be denied, and the applicant appealed to the City Council with signed and sealed plats within the ten days, would they be able to approve the plat. Mr. McKechnie stated that they would be able to approve it. The motion was taken to a vote and failed by a vote of 8 to 1. (Following the meeting, staff received legal clarification that a plat that has been denied cannot be appealed to the City Council. Staff advised Mr. Salter that plat determinations by the PBZ Commission are final and binding unless civil litigation is pursued if a plat is denied by the PBZ Commission it may be revised and resubmitted to the Planning Division with a new processing fee for consideration.) 3. Case C 16-22 Request for a Conditional Use to allow a carport and covered porch in the required front setback in a Single -Family 2 Residential (SF -2) zoning district This request is for 3703 Shasta Drive. Mrs. Cayce Wendeborn made a motion to approve. Mr. Rick Graham seconded. Mr. Christopher Guess presented the case to allow a carport and covered porch in the required front setback at 3703 Shasta Drive. Staff sent 20 notification letters; 3 responded in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 with no opinionlundecided. He stated the proposed carport was 18 ft. x 20 ft., and would be 6 ft. 2 in. from the front property line, and 3 ft. 8 in. from the interior side property line. The property was in a Single -Family 2 Residential zoning district and there were 2 other properties within the 200 ft. notification area with carports in the required front setback. Mr. Guess stated staff recommended approval of the carport and covered porch at 3703 Shasta Drive. Chairperson Martin asked if the applicant was in attendance and wished to speak. Ms. Jo Ann Smith, the applicant, was present, but chose not to address the Commission. Chairperson Martin asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak, and there were none. P S Z COWSSION PAGE 8 September 14, 2018 Chairperson Martin opened the motion to discussion among the commission, and there was none. The motion was taken to a vote and carried unanimously. 4. Case C 16-23 Request for a Conditional Use to allow a carport in the required front setback in a Single -Family 2 Residential (SF -2) zoning district. This request is for 1718 Las Vegas Trail. Mr. Jack Browne made a motion to approve. Mrs. Cayce Wendeborn seconded. Mr. Christopher Guess presented the application to allow a carport in the required front setback at 1718 Las Vegas Trail. The requested 20 ft. x 20 ft. carport would be located approximately 5ft. from the front property line and 5 ft. from the interior side property line. There were 8 properties within 200 ft, that had a carport within the front setback area. Staff notified 24 parcels; 5 responded in favor, 1 in opposition, and 0 with no opiniontundecided. There were no responses received from outside the notification area. Mr. Guess stated staff recommended approval of the carport at 1718 Las Vegas Trail. Chairperson Martin asked if the applicant was in attendance and wished to speak, and there was no one present to represent the case. Chairperson Martin asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak, and there were none. Chairperson Martin opened the motion to discussion among the commission, and there was none. The motion was taken to a vote and carried unanimously. S. Case C 16-24 Request for a Conditional Use at 4318 Faith Road to allow a limited multifamily residential use (triplex) in a Single -Family 2 Residential (SF -2) zoning district. Mr. Jeff Browning made a motion to approve. Mr. Barney Brock seconded. Mr. Christopher Guess presented the application to allow a limited multifamily residential use, a triplex, in a Single -Family 2 Residential (SF -2) zoning district at 4318 Faith Road. The existing land use was a vacant residential parcel, and surrounded on all sides by residential uses in the Single -Family 2 Residential (SF -2) zoning district. There were no other triplexes or multifamily uses within 200 ft. of the subject property. Staff notified 30 parcels; 1 responded in favor, 2 in opposition, and 0 with no opinion/undecided. There were no responses received from outside the notification area. Mr. Guess stated the proposed triplex would be a single story structure of approximately 3,000 sq. ft. The total wall height of the structure would be 15 ft., and each living unit would be approximately 1,000 sq. ft. Each living unit will have two parking spaces, which the site plan showed to be covered carports within the 25 ft. required front setback. Mr. Guess stated the applicant would either need to remove the carports from the site plan, or there would be an additional conditional use application required before constructing the carports. Mr. Guess stated staff recommended approval of Case C 16-24 with the conditions outlined in the staff report. P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 9 September 14.2016 Chairperson Martin asked if the applicant was in attendance and wished to speak. Mr. Gary Broyles of 5620 Kemp Avenue, the applicant, stated he had a similar property two blocks north of the subject parcel that was almost identical to the triplex being proposed. Chairperson Martin asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak, and there were none. Chairperson Martin opened the motion to discussion among the commission. Mr. Barney Brock stated that he thought the triplex would be a good fit for the neighborhood. Mr. Jerry Beaver stated he had concerns regarding the parking on a corner lot as there may be a safety issue. Chairperson Martin stated the Public Works Department would mandate the distance the driveway must be from the comer. Mr. Guess further clarified the distance from drive to curb and the size of drive aisles would be some of the elements addressed during the site plan review process. Chairperson Martin asked for clarification that the Commission was only currently considering the Conditional Use for the triplex, and not for the carport. Mr. Guess stated that was correct. Mrs. Cayce Wendebom stated she believed the proposed triplex would likely be a benefit to the neighborhood, but also expressed strong feelings about Protecting single-family residential neighborhoods from the encroachment of multifamily uses. She made note of the fact that there had been two responses in opposition to the proposed triplex. Mr. Dan Leslie asked if there were any other multifamily homes in the surrounding area, other than the one mentioned by Mr. Broyles. Mr. Guess stated there were no other multifamily uses within the 200 ft. notification area. Mr. Broyles confirmed there were no others within in the 200 ft. radius, but stated there were several more in the surrounding area outside of the notification radius. Mrs. Karen Gagne added that was some Multi - Family Residential (MFR) zoning on Faith Road to the north east of the subject property. The motion was taken to a vote and carried unanimously. VI. OTHER BUSINESS City Council Update — 1. Text Amendment — Outdoor Display Mrs. Karen Gagne stated that staff had conferred and met with the Downtown Wichita Falls Development (DWFD, Inc.), Organization and incorporated additional changes to the previously considered outdoor display regulations for the Central Business District (CBD). 2. Text Amendment — Donation Boxes Mrs. Gagne stated the new donation box ordinance would be controlled by City Council, but would be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review when considering amendments to the Zoning Ordinance designating specific zoning districts for the donation boxes to be allowed in (Heavy Industrial, Light Industrial, General Commercial, and Limited Commercial). Both text amendments will be presented to the Commission for consideration at the October meeting. P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 10 September 14, 2016 VII. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 3:04 p.m. ATTEST: tO - Q2- 2OL4 Date 10-i3--7�1� Date