Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 10/12/2016MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION October 12, 2016 PRESENT: Barney Brock . Members Jack Browne ♦ Alternate CM2 Jerry Beaver Krystal James Daniel Leslie 4 Rodney Martin, Chairperson Steve Lane ♦ Allemate $1 Cayce Wendebom Maris McBurnett , tx officio James McKechnie, Assist. City Attorney II . Legal DW. Karen Gagne, Planning Administrator . city staff Christopher Guess, Planner Il Matt Prouty, Planner 11 Kyle Caskey, Planning Technician Leslie Dunn, Senior Administrative Clerk Rick Branum, Engineer ♦ Public Worcs Pat Hoffman, Property Administrator ABSENT: Jeff Browning Rick Graham Anthony Inman 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 October 12, 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, It. 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 September 14, 2016 meeting. Ms. Krystal James 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 advised that staff wished to bring the preliminary plat for Park Place Subdivision, Lots 1A — 13, Block L 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 l=ire 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. P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 3 October 12, 2016 FINAL PLATS 1 Final Plat — Stone Lake Estates, Lots 2-B & 2-C, Block 22 a) Lot 2-B is served by public water and sewer. Lot 2-C is served by public water, however, a sewer extention will be required to serve lot 2-C, (Public Works/ Property Management/ Building Inspections/ Legal) b) Plat requires an extension of municipal facilities (Sewer), hence, the plat is a "Final" plat. Please resubmit as a "Final' plat with the appropriate signature blocks. (Planning) c) All access points to state roadways shall be approved by TxDOT. (TxDOT) d) Provide utility slips. (Planning) e) Return to Planning Division by Monday October 3rd 12:00 pm for P&Z preparation. (Planning) 2 Final Plat—Rolling Hills Estates Sec. 7 Lots 14-18, Block 10; Lots 5-7, Block 11; Lots 2-5, Block 12; Lots 1-6 & 13-14, Block 14; Lots 18-24, Block 15 a) The property is served by public water and sewer. (Public Works) b) Please resubmit your plat with the 4 lots, and portions of Lantana Dr. and Blackstone Dr. removed. (Public Works/ Planning) c) Remove portion of temporary turnaround easement from over existing drainage ROW. (Public works) d) Add basis of bearing. (Public Works) e) Please utilise a separate instrument to dedicate and vacate temporary turnaround. (Public Works/Property Management) f) Please add Stormwater Compliance note. (Public Works) g) No park or open space in this subdivision. (Parks) h) Additional easements may be required. (Oncor) 1) All access points to state roadways shall be approved by TxDOT. (TxDOT) j) Provide utility slips. (Planning) k) Return to Planning Division by Monday October 3rd 12:00 pm for P&Z preparation. (Planning) 3 Final Plat — French Country Meadow Lot 1, Block 1 a) The property is not served by public water and sewer, an on-site sewage system will be required. (Public Works) b) Please submit black line copies (Location Map) of the plat. (Planning) c) FM Highway 367 should be a fully dedicated 70 foot ROW, please confirm with TxDOT that the proposed ROW dedication of the triangle portion is not already dedicated. (Public Works/ Planning) d) Please resubmit legible 8.5 x 11 PDFs. (Planning) e) All access points to state roadways shall be approved by TxDOT. (TxDOT) Q Provide utility slips. (Planning) g) Return to Planning Division by Monday October 3rd 12:00 pm for P&Z preparation. (Planning) Mr. Jack Browne introduced a motion to approve the consent agenda of the October 12, 2016 meeting. Mr. Barney Brock seconded the motion. The consent agenda was P & 2 COMMISSION PAGE 4 October 12, 2016 approved with a unanimous vote with the exception of the Park Place Subdivision Preliminary Plat. V. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Preliminary Plat— Moved down from Consent Agenda Park Place Subdivision, Lots 1A-13, Block L Mr. Barney Brock made a motion to approve. Ms. Krystal James seconded. Mr. Christopher Guess presented the application to replat Lots 1A-13, Block L, Park Place Subdivision, more familiarly known as the Wilson House. He stated the property was located at 4015 Lake Park Drive and was zoned Single -Family 2 Residential (SF -2). The proposed preliminary plat would subdivide the property into thirteen lots, twelve would be single family detached lots, and one would be the lot containing the existing structure known as the Wilson House as well as the features and structures associated with it. Mr. Guess stated Mrs. Cayce Wendeborn had brought up some concerns related to flooding in the area. He pointed out that the plat did not trigger a notification because it is still in the preliminary stage. He stated notifications would be required when the plat reached the final platting phase of the process. Mr. Guess stated staff had reviewed the plat and found it in compliance with the subdivision and development regulations. He stated staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat as submitted. 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 opened the motion to discussion among the commission. Mrs. Cayce Wendebom suggested bringing the plat down for discussion because the streets adjacent to the area being platted had a tendency to flood whenever it rained for any prolonged period of time. She stated her concern was that the over development of the parcel being platted could add to the drainage issues in the area. Mr. Rick Branum, Civil Engineer in the Public Works Depatment, stated the development being proposed would not solve the drainage issues being experienced on Lake Park Drive and Brenda Hursh Drive, but it would not exacerbate the problem. He stated a new drainage ordinance passed in 2011 required each new development to provide detention for run-off water. This particular project had a large detention basin in the north-east comer of the property that would handle drainage for the development. Mr. Branum stated the improvements being made would provide some relief to the drainage onto Lake Park Drive, but it would not solve all of the drainage issues In the area. He also noted the area being discussed had been identified by Public Works for future projects targeted at drainage. Mr. Dan Leslie stated he was concerned with the potential increase in traffic In the area. He asked If there was going to be rear alley access, or if the new homes would all have parking that fronted Lake Park Drive. Mr. Branum stated that he believed the homes would all front Lake Park Drive, and there would not be a back alley. Chairperson Martin pointed out that all of these issues would be addressed when the plat went P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 5 October 12, 2016 through the process as a final plat and that the specifics of the layout were not known at this point in the process. Mrs. Wendebom asked if there was any way for the City to make a recommendation that an alley be included as part of the development plans. Mr. James McKechnie stated that if it was included in the subdivision and platting ordinance, staff could make a recommendation. If it was not included in the ordinance, they could not. He explained that plats are hyper -technical in nature and if staff recommended approval of a plat, it has met all of the subdivision regulations and should be approved. Mr. Guess stated the current stage of the platting process was to prepare the land for development and staff did not yet have the design for the built environment. He stated he could make an educated assumption based on the information currently available that access would be received from the frontage. He pointed out that there would be a notification required during the final platting process and any overarching concerns could be addressed at that phase in the process. Mrs. Wendebom stated she was aware that the properties are already being marketed by the developers, and was concerned about the issues of flooding and traffic being addressed before the development moved forward. The motion was taken to a vote and passed by a vote of 6 to 2. 2. Case P 16-08 Request to replat (3602 & 3604 Glenwood Avenue) tots 10-A & 11-A, Block 2, Willow Brook Estates, Section 4 Mrs. Cayce Wendeborn made a motion to approve. Mr. Barney Brock seconded. Mr. Guess presented the case to replat two lots at 3602 & 3604 Glenwood Avenue. He stated the plat had been presented at the September 14"' meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff had recommended denial based on non -adherence to subdivision and development regulations. Mr. Guess stated the plat had since been brought into adherence. Staff notified 24 properties; 6 responded in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 with no opinion/undecided. Mr. Guess stated staff recommended approval of the plat for Lots 10-A & 11-A, Block 2, Willow Brook Estates, Section 4 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 passed unanimously. 3. Case C 16-25 Request for a Conditional Use to allow a carport in the required exterior side setback In a General Commercial (GC) zoning district, This request is for 1508 Bluff Street. Mr. Dan Leslie made a motion to approve. Mrs. Cayce Wendebom seconded. P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 6 October 12, 2016 Mr. Christopher Guess presented the case to allow a carport in the required exterior side setback at 1508 Bluff Street. Staff notified 25 properties; 2 responded in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 with no opinion/undecided. He stated the proposed carport was on a property that had been sold by a meets and bounds description and had not be replatted. He explained that the new property lines crossed preexisting legal lot lines and the property, as currently situated, is not a legal lot of record. The proposed carport would be 25 ft. x 20 ft., and would be built over the exterior side property line. The property was in a General Commercial (GC) zoning district and there were no other properties within the 200 ft. notification area with carports in the required exterior side setback. Mr. Guess stated staff recommended approval of the carport at 1508 Bluff Street with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Chairperson Martin asked if the applicant was in attendance and wished to speak. Mr. Henry Hernandez, the applicant, stated he wanted the carport to protect his vehicles from the weather. 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. Chairperson Martin asked Mr. Hernandez if he understood staffs condition requiring a replat of the property. Chairperson Martin explained that there was both a process and a cost Involved with a replat. Mr. Hernandez asked what the cost would be for a plat. Mr. Guess stated that the cost would be determined by the engineering firm that performed the plat. Mr. Guess stated that, in order to correct the problem fully, the replat would need to include all three of the properties that had been illegally subdivided. He stated, because there were multiple properties involved, the cost associated with the replat would threefold. Chairperson Martin asked Mr. Hernandez if he owned all three of the lots involved. Mr. Hernandez stated that he only owned the one lot. Mr. Guess asked if It was his sister that owned one of the adjacent lots. Mr. Hernandez stated it was sister- in-law that owned the adjacent, vacant lot. Chairperson Martin asked what would be the recourse if Mr. Hernandez could not get all three property owners to agree to a replat. Mr. Guess stated, if this were the case, the condition would be prohibitive of Mr. Hernandez building a carport. Mr. Jerry Beaver asked if it was known when or how the illegal plat came about. Mr. Guess stated the specific were not known, but explained that the owner of the two legal lots had divided them Into three lots and sold them by meets and bounds. The deeded parcels had been filed with the County and made into taxable entities, but the lots were never platted by the City, hence were not legal lots of record. He stated City infrastructure had never been considered and quasi -public entities had not been consulted when the lots were created. Mr. McKechnie stated similar situations existed throughout the city, but the City does not seek these situations out. He stated that when these situations come to the City's attention, it is certainly the goal to bring them into compliance as a platted lot. P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 7 October 12, 2016 Mr. Beaver stated he felt like Mr. Hernandez was being punished for circumstances that were beyond his control. Mr. McKechnie stated the conditions are staff's recommendations and the Commission does have the authority to add or retract conditions when making a motion. Mr. Steve Lane asked Mr. McKechnle if there was a provision that could potentially grandfather the lots to exist as they are deeded. Mr. McKechnie stated grandfathering is applied to how land is being used and didn't really apply to this particular situation. Mr. Lane asked if there was a provision under which the City could replat the lots to bring them into compliance. Mr. McKechnie stated the City does not have the ability to do so. Chairperson Martin elaborated that there would be costs incurred by a surveyor or civil engineer. Chairperson Martin asked if the illegal subdivision would affect the title commitments of the properties if they were to be sold. Pat Hoffman, Property Management Administrator, stated it would. She stated it would create a problem with chain of title because there was a platted lot on record and the deeded lots dispute what is represented in the plat. Chairperson Martin asked if the recommendation to replat were removed from the motion, would approval of the carport have any further adverse effects on the title commitments. Ms. Hoffman stated the issues already existed and the approval of the carport would not exacerbate them. Mrs. Wendeborn made a motion to alter the existing motion by removing the condition requiring the applicant to replat the lots. The motion was seconded by Barney Brock. The motion to alter the existing motion was taken to a vote and carried unanimously. The motion to approve the carport at 1508 Bluff Street with the exclusion of the second condition was taken to a vote and carried unanimously. 4. Case C 16-26 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 2316 Rockhill Road. Mrs. Cayce Wendebom made a motion to approve. Mr. Barney Brock seconded. Mr. Matthew Prouty presented the application to allow a carport in the required front setback at 2316 RockhIll Road. The requested 20 ft. x 24 ft. carport would be located approximately 3 ft. 9 in. from the front property line, 25 ft. from the interior side property line, and 10ft. from a drainage easement along the interior side of the property. There was 1 property within 200 ft. that had a carport within the required front setback area. Staff noted 24 parcels; 2 responded in favor, 1 In opposition, and 0 with no opinion/undecided. There were no responses received from outside the notification area. Mr. Prouty stated staff recommended approval of the carport at 2316 Rockhill Road. Chairperson Martin asked If the applicant was in attendance and wished to speak. The applicant was present but chose not to speak. 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. Chairperson Martin asked if there had been another case recently before the P & Z COMMISSION PAGE B October 12. 2016 Commission that was in the same neighborhood. Mrs. Gagn4 stated there had been. Mr. Darrel Kirkland, the contractor for the project, stated the previous carport case had been for Mr. Thomas Taylor, the next door neighbor to the current applicant. Chairperson Martin asked if the carport being proposed was going to be similar in style to the one built for Mr. Taylor. Mr. Kirkland stated that it would be exactly the same. The motion was taken to a vote and carried unanimously. S. Case C 16-27 Request for a Conditional Use at 2714 Palmetto Drive to allow a carport in the required front setback In a Single -Family 2 Residential (SF -2) zoning district. Mr. Jack Browne made a motion to approve. Mr. Dan Leslie seconded. Mr. Christopher Guess presented the application to allow a carport in the required front setback at 2714 palmetto Drive. The requested 24 ft. x 24 ft. carport would be located approximately 5 ft. from the front property line and 11 ft. from the interior side property line. There were 5 properties within 200 ft. that had a carport within the front setback area. Staff notified 28 parcels; 3 responded in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 with no opinionlundecided. There were no responses received from outside the notification area. Mr. Guess stated staff recommended approval of the carport at 2714 Palmetto Drive as submitted. 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. 6. Case C 16-28 Request for a Conditional Use at 1 Rob Roy Lane to allow a carport In the required exterior side setback in a Single -Family 2 Residential (SF -2) zoning district. Mrs. Cayce Wendebom made a motion to approve. Mr. Dan Leslie seconded. Mr. Matthew Prouty presented the application to allow a carport in the required exterior side setback at 1 Rob Roy Lane. The requested 22 ft. x 21 ft. carport would be located approximately 18 ft. 5 in. from the front property line and be built 6 ft. over the exterior side property line. There were 0 properties within 200 ft. that had a carport within the exterior side setback area. Staff notified 20 parcels; 2 responded in favor, 5 in opposition, and 0 with no opinionlundecided. There were no responses received from outside the notification area. Mr. Prouty stated staff recommended approval of the carport at 1 Rob Roy Lane with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Mr. Prouty stated there had been some mention in the opposition letters of potential deed restrictions in the neighborhood where the carpal was being proposed. Mr. Prouty clarified that deed restrictions would be a wholly civil matter that the City had not be reviewed or considered in its recommendation. P 6 2 COMMISSION PAGE 9 October 12, 2016 Chairperson Martin asked if the applicant was in attendance and wished to speak. Mr. Donald Brown, the applicant, stated he and his wife Sandra had moved into their home a year ago. He stated that they did not need the carport for their cars, but for a place for him and his wife to sit. He stated that they would be happy to reduce the size of the carport to conform with the conditions outlined by staff. 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 Mrs. Cayce Wendebom stated that it looked from the pictures as though the home had no back yard and asked the applicant if this was correct. Mrs. Sandra Brown stated there was very little space at the rear of the home. Mrs. Wendeborn asked if the flat roof represented in the example photograph was representative of what the applicants would be building. Mr. Brown stated that the roof of their carport would be gabled. The motion was taken to a vote and carried unanimously. 7. Case TA 16-01 An ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 94 Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places, Article I In General, Section 94-13 Storage of Material, Equipment, Goods, Wares or Merchandise on Streets, Sidewalks, & Alleys; and establishing outdoor display regulations downtown in Appendix B — Zoning, Section 2030 Terms Defined; Sections 3800 Permitted Uses & 3810 Development Regulations in the Central Business District (CBD), and establishing Sections 5980 — 5986 Outdoor Display, Mrs. Cayce Wendebom made a motion to approve. Mr. Dan Leslie seconded. Mrs. Karen Gagnd stated staff first introduced the potential of this text amendment to the Commission back in December 2015, then presented the initial draft ordinance in April 2018. The draft had been reviewed and endorsed by the Commission, but there had been subsequent collaboration with multiple departments that resulted in some necessary revisions and additions to the ordinance. She stated one of those changes was the addition of a definition of hardscape. Also added was a stipulation requiring that all items in the outdoor display, excluding hardscape, be removed at close of business each day. Mrs. Gagnd stated the Downtown Wichita Falls Development (DWFD) Organization had reviewed and endorsed the current provisions. The development of outdoor patio areas and outdoor display areas was a trend that had been observed in multiple other cities and it was reflective of the growth taking place in the City's downtown. Mrs. Gagn6 stated the passage of the Outdoor Dining ordinance the previous year had allowed several businesses to capitalize on that opportunity. She stated an important element of these ordinances was the development of an encroachment agreement with the City in order to ensure utility access and pedestrian movability. Mrs. Gagnd noted the ordinance being presented would only apply to businesses in the Central Business District. The ordinance would provide standard, consistent regulations, and it would also address aesthetics. She stated outdoor display has to be accessory to the main use of the business, and would require an encroachment agreement between both the tenant and owner and the City. The encroachment agreement would insure that a minimum of 5 ft. of pedestrian access is maintained and P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 10 October 12. 2016 that the items will be removed in the event that utility repairs need to be made. There would also be a one-time fee for the encroachment agreement of $250.00. Mrs. Gagn6 stated staff would like to recommend the ordinance revisions be endorsed by the Commission. She stated once the revisions were endorsed, they would move forward for City Council consideration in November. It's recommended the ordinance not go into effect until January 1s' of 2017 in order to provide staff time to distribute the information to downtown property owners. Chairperson Martin asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak on the case, and there were none. Chairperson Martin opened the motion for discussion among the Commission. Mr. Dan Leslie asked if this ordinance would have any effect on the decoration of trees with lights. Mrs. Gagn6 stated this was something the City could work out with business owners and elaborated that the section of the ordinance dealing with lighting was more geared toward outdoor spotlights and lighting that would be strung across the public right-of-way. Mrs. Cayce Wendeborn pointed out that there was not 5 ft. of clearance between the fence and curb at the Iron Horse Pub outdoor dining area. Mrs. Gagn6 stated staff had measured the distance from curb to fence and found that there was a 5 ft. space maintained for pedestrian traffic. Mr. Jerry Beaver expressed concern that there would be issues with code enforcement interpreting the definition of hardscape. Mrs. Gagn6 stated staff had worked closely with code enforcement when developing the text amendment and several discussions related to proper ways to interpret the definition. She stated they had researched other similar ordinances and made efforts to ensure that the terms of the ordinance were outlined as clearly as possible. The motion to recommend the ordinance revisions for outdoor display was taken to a vote and was passed unanimously. B. Case TA 1602 An ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 46 by the addition of Article VII, Donation Boxes; donation box regulations and permitted uses within Appendix B — Zoning, Section 2030 Terms Defined; Sections 3000, Zoning District Types and Regulations, specifically Section 3400 Conditional Uses in the Limited Commercial (LC) District; Section 3470 Permitted Uses in the General Commercial (GC) District; Section 3530 Permitted Uses in the Light Industrial (U) District; Section 3600 Permitted Uses In the Heavy Industrial (HI) District. Mrs. Cayce Wendebom made a motion to approve. Mr. Dan Leslie seconded. Mrs. Karen Gagn6 noted the city began to see a proliferation of both for profit and non- profit donation boxes in 2014. Some of the boxes were being placed on private property and others in the public right-of-way. In response to several complaints, multiple departments collaborated in an effort to reach a solution. She stated staff had examined research from across the country that dealt with donation box ordinances and focused specifically on Athens, TX as well as Lawton and Duncan, OK. Mrs. Gagn6 stated in 2015 there was a US Court of Appeals case out of Michigan that changed how the ordinance could be approached. The case established that certain content based sections of the ordinance being challenged were in violation of the plaintiffs First Amendment rights. Due to the case decision, staff was obligated to scrutinize the ordinance being crafted and remove any provisions that could be P d Z COMMISSION PAGE 11 October 12, 2016 interpreted as a violation of First Amendment rights. The purpose of this intense scrutiny was to avoid moving forward with an ordinance that was ripe for challenge. Mrs. Gagn6 stated that in the fall of 2016 staff had met with multiple entities within the City, such as Goodwill, Faith Mission, Salvation Army and DARE and gathered feedback regarding donation boxes. Provisions being considered included a possible cap on total number and restriction on placement. She stated that several donation boxes currently placed throughout the city would need to be relocated based on the provisions of the ordinance. Mrs. Gagn6 stated that the proposed donation box ordinance fell under the environmental section of the Code of Ordinances and was being presented to the Commission for informational purposes only. She stated the secondary proposed revision dealing with changes to the Zoning Ordinance was the portion of the ordinance that was before the Commission for consideration. She stated the zones where the donation boxes were proposed to be a permitted use were the Heavy Industrial, Light Industrial, and General Commercial zoning districts. The boxes would also be allowed in the Limited Commercial zoning district as a Conditional Use. Mrs. Gagn6 stated permits would be required for any donation box located within the city. An application and site plan would need to be submitted for review by Planning and Building Inspections, and there would be an annual fee along with the initial fee. The maximum square footage would be 36 sq. ft. and all donation materials must fit inside the box. Contact information will have to be displayed on the box where it is visible from the street, the boxes must be placed on an improved surface on real property, and they cannot be placed on a property that has a residential use, even if it is in a commercial district. Maintenance and upkeep up the boxes will be the responsibility of the property owner and permit holder, and the boxes cannot be placed in a setback area. She stated repeated violations could result in the revocation of a permit. Mrs. Gagnd stated staff recommended approval of the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to allow donation boxes in the outlined districts. Chairperson Martin asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak on the case. Mr. Ed Trope, Special Project Manager of Goodwill Industries for Southwest Oklahoma and North Texas, stated the ordinance being proposed was very similar to what had been adopted in Lawton, but did not Include a provision restricting the number of boxes each organization was allowed to have. He stated without limitations on number, the City would be opening the door to unlimited donation boxes throughout the city. He also pointed out that the ordinance in Lawton restricted boxes from being placed within a mile of one another. Mr. Trope stated in Lawton a company called American Recyclers had planned to put in one hundred donations boxes. He stated the City Council had passed an ordinance limiting the number of bins and the distance between bins, which was upheld In court. He stated he believed similar limitations should be included in the proposed ordinance. John Tunnell, resident at 4102 Rivercrest Drive and member of the local Maskat Shriners, stated the Shriners had twelve or thirteen donation boxes located within the city. He stated all the proceeds went to benefit the Shriners Hospital for Children In Houston. He stated that if any of their donation boxes needed to be relocated to bring them into compliance with the new ordinance, they would be willing to do so. He stated their boxes did not bring in much profit and hoped the fees would not be too onerous. P & 2 COMMISSION PAGE 12 October 12, 2016 Chairperson Martin opened the motion for discussion among t! a Commission. Chairperson Martin asked if there would be a Conditional Use opt* n -or bins located within the required setbacks. Mrs. Gagne stated that was not the intention. Mr. McKechnie clarified that a City Council waiver would be required in these situations. Mrs. Gagne stated the fees were mirrored after those imposed in Lawto, and in line with the minimum building permit fees. She stated the fees were necessa, y n order to cover staff time involved in maintaining the database and annual pert - ".,'ng, along with processing applications and site plans. Chairperscn Martin stated it a Fees would also serve to limit the number of boxes located in the city. Mrs. Wendebom asked if a limit to the number of donation b: "es coy be added to the motion as a recommendation. Mr. McKechnie stated there h:id been 5th Circuit Case, National Federation of the Blind vs. Abbott, establishing donatio bins as silent solicitors. As silent solicitors, donation bins are subject to freedom of s; each protection under the 1't amendment and cannot be limited without compelling go : rnment interest. He stated the legal team had made the determination that leaving OW these limitations could help avoid litigation. He stated by regulating the bores to specific zones and requiring fees, the City is able to avoid using content based re:7,trictions Mr. Dan Leslie asked what was to prevent for profit donation boxes from pushing out those operating not for profit. Mr. McKechnie stated that the same 51, Circuit case had overturned a statute established by the Texas Legislature requiring donation boxes be marked 'for profit" or "not for profit" and placed the burden on the individual to find out for themselves. He stated that this ruling made it illegal to require the boxes be marked "for profit" or "not for profit". Mrs. Gagne stated there was still ar, active recycling component included in the City Ordinance dealing with recyl for items Wat do not require a secondary manufacturing process for reuse. The motion to recommend the ordinance regulating donation bins was taken to a vote and was passed by a vote of 6 to 1. VI. OTHER BUSINESS 1. October — National Community Planning Month 2. City Council Update — None VII. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 3:34 p.m. I ATTEST: / r2— Aaron Hudman, Dept. of Community Development «•9-204 Da.e // - 9 Date