Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 03/08/20171YrIIqa r E5 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION March 8, 2017 PRESENT: Jerry Beaver bare Barney Brock: Vice-Chirperson .rack Browne Lynda Cannedy • rhemam •z Krystal JamEa • Steve Lane . Rit.FRU6 91 Cayce Wendeborn James McKechnie, Senior Assist. City Attorney • reya, OepL. Karen Gagne, Planning Ad,,,i„i5trator • Vit, 518n Aaron Hadman, Planner III Marr Praaty: Planner II Susan Morris, Environmental Administrator . Reeitn eistriUt Samantha Blair, Sanitarian ♦ Realm Vistrtt ABSENT: Rick Graham Blake Haney Anthony Inman Rodney Martin, Chairpar—.on • Mark McBarnett . E;; otticie I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was callWd to crdEr by Vica-Cha;rplraun, Mr. Barmy Brock, at 2:00 p.m. Vice - Chairperson Brouk proceeded to make the following comments: a. This meeting i5 bei, g talevl5ed 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 ne.%t month at 2:00 p.m. b. Mutiun5 made by the Cummi55;on membEr include all ataff recummendatiur,s and developmental regairernent5 listed in the staff repoll. Any deviations will be discussed on a va5u-by-caau basin and voted on accordingly. 4. Applivanta and uitir-una ..hu yduh to addre55 the Commi58lun ur anorrcr qucstiUns from the Commission members are asked to please speak into the microphone at the podium. Q n. i "n"—'AISSION PAMI:2 March A. 2017 This meeting i- being taped and there is no microphone to r_cnrd Ot!"ements made from the -udience. ,4. Please silence all cell phone riagers d, iriog the meeting. If it is necessary for you to have a cell phoae noove►-satioo during the meeting, please use the hallway outside this Qnm. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the nudieure wished t„ _''dress the Commissiao. III. APPRO%Ist OF MINUTES Mrs. Cayce Weadebaro introduced a mntino to approve the minutes of the February 8, 2017 meeting. Mn. Krystal Jamec Cecander' the motion. The mioutec_ wpre appyovad with a unanimous vota. IV. CONS=W'r AGENDA The plats cammittPe rec^_mma=ded approval of the following plate subjpnf to the Standard Coaditino- of &ppeoval for Preliminary Plats and any specific noditions listed: Standard CooditionC of Appr^ual for Final Plats ■ Provide utility and draioage easemp_tc -no required by utility rompaoies an tha Direct^w of Public Wnrke. ■ S, ibmit aswer, street, sidewalk and drainage plaaG to the Direct -r of Public Works and water plans to both the Fire Marshal -ad t -e Director of Public. Works, Drai=age pias must be complete -_=ugh to Include impact oo surr_uodiog property and include detention facilities as required by Director of Public Works. ■ Coordinate street lighting pian and prnuide utility easements as required by the Dirpct_r of Aviation, Traffic mad Tra=sportation. Note: Approval of a plat doem ==t imply approval of developmeat of property in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Rerommeodaticoa Recommended approval ilz -uhject to standard cooditican and e_y specific conditions listed below sh-l! be met prior to plat sign-aff and/or is,-u_nr-s of n building permit: FINAL PLATS: 7. Family DnII-r MLK. Lot 9A. Block 159 a. The property is served by public water and sawar (Public- Works) b. P =aide utility slips. (Plaoniog) P & Z coIYII 133IVR PAGE 3 MarcM s, Ai r 2. Ful`y Addition, Lot 1, Block 1 a. r lie property is ulrrad by public water_ an extension of public sewer is required (Public Works) 3. T.E. Hill SuOtIivision; Lots 18-A and 19-8, Blink 1 a. The property is served by public ..atter and aevver (Public Works) b_ Provide utility slips, (Planning) 4. Mackey rtanch Estat`a, Lots 22-36, Block 1 a. All access points to state road..aya ahmil be approved by TADOT. (TxDO j) Mrs. Cayce Wendeborn introtlaced a motion to approve the conse, d agenda of the March s, 2017 meeting. Mr. Jack Browne seconded the motion. I he consent agumda was approved with a unanimous vote. V. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Case P 17-01 Request to replat (8, 9, & 10 Fraudzin, Circle) Lots 8. 9_ & 10. Block 28, Section 25, Expressway Village. Mrs. Krystal James made a motion to approve. Mr. Cayce Wendeborn seconded. Mr. Aaron Hudman pru-ntud the case to replat 8, 9, & 10 Freedom Circle. He otatud the plat waz taking Lot 9, and splitting it between lots s & 10. Mr. Hodrman Stated the prpurty waa zonad Single Family 2 (SF-/-) Residential. He atatud the applicants would be required to install sidewalks for the property being platted within one year of plat recordation. Mr. Hudman stated ataff rccurnrnandcd approval of the replat for Lots 8, 9, & 10, Bleck 28, Section 25, Erpressway Village with the conditions as outlined in the staff spurt. Vice -Chairperson Brock asked if the applicant ..aa i,, attendance and wished to speak, and there was no one present to reprc;ent the cane. Vice -Chairperson Brock asked if there was anyone alga in the audience who wished to speaR, and there ..are mune. Vice -Chairperson Brock opened the motion to diacu33ion amu„g the commission, and there was none. The motion was taken to a vote and passed unanimously. c. Lase P 17-02 Ruquaat tv— replat Luts 38 & 38-A. Block a; erection H, Unit 5, Sikes Estate. Mrs. Cayce Wendeborn made a motion to approve. Ms. Krystal James seconded. Mr. Aaron Hudman preaantad the case to replat lots an & 38-A, Block 3, Stiction H, Unit 5, Sike3 Eatate. He stated the two lots were being reconfigured in order to incraase the i? A z rndspaiccinp� nnr_c 4 Mareb 8, 2017 size of the backyard on lot 38, and add frontage to [at 38-A. Mr. Hudman stated the property WaQ 7oaed Single Family 2 (SF -2) residential. Mr. burlmon etated staff recommended approval of the renlat for Lots 8, 9, & 10, Block 28, Section 25, Exnresswav Village with the conditions as out[ioed in the Staff report. Vice-Chnirperenn Brork acked if the 2pplit'0nt w_c in ette=dance and wished to speak, and there was no one present to represent the rase. Vine-Chairpe-moo Brock asked if there Was anyone else in the audience who Wished to speak, and there serer- =n -=e. Vine-Chairpersoo Brock npeoed the mntinn to diQnut ion among the rnmmiccing, nod thorn uuae Tha=^-ti^-= wac taken to a vote and passed unanimously. 3. Case TA 17-01 Ao ordinnone amending the Code of Ordi_ancava, eppe_dt- R: 7^-ning. Section 5925 - Oufd^_^_r Fn_nn-d Cnurt- -=d Qenfln_n 3450 - General Commercial District (c_i-tiL%n 'I"a0 - conditional Uses) establishing regulations for Outdoor Food Courts as Conditional Uses in the General Cn_mmercial (GC) 7ooiog distrint. Mrs. Cayce Weadebaro made a mntinn to approvaa. Ms. Krystal Jamoc cat -coded Mrc. Karoo Gagne premie^ted the case to allow outdoor food courts in the General Commercial (GC) zonining district as a randitiooal use. She stated that staff had examined how several other cities throughout the state Were handling similar situations. She Stated they had bPea primarily focused on rities that %Afore ko^_IA►_ to have eery active outdoor food courts. Mrs. Gagop etnted that iodiuidunl fnQd trucks were currently allowed in the Geeer_I C=__errcial (C=r) mooning district as long as thev have access to 9 ceoi _I preparatory kitchen, employees have access to bathroom facilities, and there is ample parking. MrG. Gngoe Stated that Comp of the issues staff had cn=cidered luhile grafting the nrdinance war- parking requiremeotc, n -nice, hnurc =f operation, buffering, proximitv to residential areas, lighti=g, a=d 9--ccess. She pointed out that 19% of the ]aod area io the -ity is zoned General Commercial (GC), and there are many areas Where General Commercial (GC) zones contain an existing residential use or are dirartly adjacent to residential zooiog districts. Mr. Matt Prouty stated that while re-e2rnhing how other cities were treating outdn_or food ,n rte ha had discovered that there was no singular, coosisteot tread. He stated Augtio was the most permissive in regard to buffering from resideotial 7nnec, but allnwed extended hours of operatiaoG for food courts that provided a greatar c_parati^= from residential areae, He Stated Ft. Worth, with a 500 ft. buffer. was one of the most ractrirtiva of the ritioc th_t were Innncleed at. He stated that Austin, College Station, Bedfn-rd, Denton, Ft. Worth, and San Antonio were among those nitiPs examiaed that allowed food courts in their General Commernial (GC) znniog districts, mod that College Station and Bedford did sn with the requirement of a conditional use permit. He et -ted Sao Antonio required a 200 ft. buffer between residential dictri-ts and a food court, and a 300 ft. b, iffier from brick and —Lira r_et2urants. He stated that not many other munirip2litiec in Tey -s required a buffer from existing brick and mortar restaurants, Mr. Prouty stated staff recommended a 100 ft. buffering requirement betwep= fn-=rl courts and residential 7ooes and uses. He stated they nloL% recommended a requirement for the parrol on which a fond court is located to be platted in accardance P & Z COMM1331niq PAGE o Marcm o, zD I r with the city's subdiviaien and development regulations. Per rucummandaburr by the City Fire Marshall, staff also recommended a c6 ft. wide fire apparatus access route around the periphary of the food coag be required. He stated that, per current requi lumant3 under the Health section of the Coda of Ordinaceb, any food truck operating on a parcel with an onsitW cummiaaary that does not have space at that cun'IrrrIssary would have to move from that location at the eno of each day. He stated that plumbing, electrical, and parking would also have to cunfurm with e,%isting requirements of the Code of Ordinances. Mr. Prouty displayed a 4onir reg map of the city and asked the Commission if they had any quastiunz or Comments. Mrs. Cayce Wendaborn stated that it did not appear than- ..am a buffer between existing restuaranta and the adjacent resitiential r-uning in the Cunimercial Corridor tCC), and aaked why food coaRs should be limited in a way that Nick anti mortar re3taurant3 were not. Mr. Prouty explained that, unlike an enclosed restaurant with a aingla kituhan, food courts were opan and there would be multiple cooking facilities operating at once, resulting in a higher intensity ase and more noise and light pollution. Mrs. Wentieborn saggaatad a 50 ft. buffer might 15e sufficient. Mr. P, uaty stated that Austin had a 50 ft. baba buffer, but they also had mors prutvctiva buffer t -ones than Wichita Falls, and there wab also a stipulation written in to Austin's ordinance allowing home owners to petition the buffer and request additional restrictions. Mr. Wendebun r asked if it was possible to radaLa the buffer and inclatie a similar atipalaticn to the one abed in Austin. Mr. Jim Dockery, Deputy City Manager, stated he would caution against allevving food courts in goo close a prz;,.imity to residential areas. Re stated that, at this puint. there was only one prupuaal to place an outdoor food court in the General Commercial (GC) zoning district. As this was relatively new territory far the city, it would be more prudent to allow outdoor food coons antler more restrictive goidelineb than less. Mr. Jerry Beaver asked Mr. Du4kery if he was coricernen that thea might be Complaints from residents of adja4ent Single Family neigMl5orhoods o.ar 63na3 with noise and light. Mr. Dockerystated he was worried there would be complaints, which was why he hoped to have a cumprhensive sei of regulations that would address as many potential iaauas as possible. Mrs. Wendeborn utated that Conditional obe applications could be denied if there were objections from the residents in the area. She stated notification rb would be matte as part of the process, giving residents an uppurtanity to u.%prass their opinions. Mr. Dockery reiterated that Mare was o..rrantly only one request for an outdoor food court, and at this early stage it wuald nut be advisable to allow outdoor food coart3 any closer to residential areas than the recommended 100 feet. Mrs. Wandeborn stated she did not want Wichita Fa115 to be a city that made it difficult fur food vendorb to do business. Shu stated that by making it easier for people to gnaw their bobinesses, both the bu3ina5s owners arid the city would pruupar frVm it. Mrs. Gagne pointed uut that when you look at the other cities that ,.are researched, the recommended 100 foot buffer was actually on the lura re5t, ictive end of the spectrum. Sha Stated that Ft. Worth, as well as soma of the other cities earlier outlined, had a 500 foot buffer from resitiential. She stated staff had weighed all the potential aide affects of operating an outdoor food court and tried to create an ordinance that ..cold provide the best possible balance. She stated that several of the municipalities researched had set buffering districts surrounding their commercial =ening, but Wichita Falls did not have a buffer zone separating resioential zoning from the majority of its commercially -.unud land. P R 7 rompolsslpd RArF A Uarcb A, 20]7 Ms. Krystal James asked if the outdoor food courts were meant to be permanent, or if they were going to be set up as special events. Mr. Prouty explained that once a rooditional use permit iG issued, it would stay with the parcel of laod it was iGcued. Ur. Jerry Ro_uor etnted he wac conPerned _b_, it the unicia and varinuc „char I:eg_tiue aspects that would result from outdoor food courts serving alcohol in close proximity to residential areas. Mr. Jack Browne stated he felt what was being greseoted was a good first step toward eGtablishiog appropriate regulations for outdoor food courts in the General Commercial (GC) 7noiag di--trict. He Qtnted the ordioanre is jar-Weiva for nes++► bucipaccac wanting to ecteblich in the Pity, end glen cnpciderc the impart on eur =u=ding r=eide=t-. He e}eted it would be —are dif i,ult t= dial thing-_ b -,k noce the ordinance was passed than it would be to expand upon it. Mr. Hudman stated this was something staff had considered when crafting the ordinance. He stated because the cnoditiocal use would be permanent once granted, it was important to take iorrPmPotal gtepq in order to reach the appropriate end. Idle. leryet-ml Je_ve 2elrer[ if the buffer nculd he reduced If it "Mr- requested by an individual applicant during the conditional use approval process. Mr. James McKechnie, Senior Assistant City Attorney, stated it could oat. He said the buffer could be added to, but ogre the minimum was set it could not be redurPd. Ma. Lynda Cannedy asked what p^_int the buffer was to be maesured from. Mr. Prnnuty etatad it would be maeSured either frr,_ fbe ­n_i_g bund=ry line in the _f nbuttiog recid_oti2l zoning, nr fr„= the property line in the case of a residential use in a non-residential zoning district. Mr. Prouty stated that another rhange that staff wan rerommeodiog wnq to iorlude a requirement that the food trucks be parked an a pero]aoeot, improved curfaPP. He ctntad they ant reeammeQding 8 buffer from evicting rectourantc r%r odditin__el K, iffere from eChnale god th_t t:n ^_rdi_e_r•e wn_uld not limit the number of trucks able to locate in an outdoor food court. He stated the number of trucks allowed would be determined based on what the land would support, and this could be done on a rase by race Mr. Jerry Be=uer pointed nut thot if =o nOdn_r fQcd rnVrt ,mre ple,-ed within 200 feet ^f a school, TABC regulations would prevent them from serving alcohol. Mr. Prouty stated several municipalities were rolling back their buffers from schools based on school districts waotiog food tnfrks to Innate no Grhool propRrty. Vicn-ChBirpersnn BrnPk —ked if there sone moynne in the 2udienno suhrr wiched t_ speak, and there -ere none. Vice -Chairperson Brork opened the motion to further diSrussioo among the cnmmicsino, Mr. Steve Lane asked if Sucan Marries Eavjrnnmaptal Administrator, could further-YpiniQ the requiremeata of Chapter 26 n_f the Ha81th Code. Me. Morrie dated rhopter la hneir—Ily eteted 2 fQcd ueod_r that uses the central preparation facility located at the outdoor food court is allowed to leave their vehicle at the location overnight. If the vendor does not use the food court rommisGary as their r.Pntral preparation facility, they must move their vehicle- to the namrai-qcary that they uCe in order to clean, restock, and empty waist into a graaee trap. She stated that n ci^gle truck cocor,t houe Outdoor canting or eign'gs, but 2 fQcd truck lnret_d in utdnor food court can have outdoor seating and one sandwich board sign. She stated that, unless located in a food court, there can only be one food truck located on a property. P S c LUMMISSION PAGE 7 WrCh B, 2011 Mr. Hadman puinted out Mat passage cf thu pruposed ordinance would not eliminate Fir change the requirements for individaai food tracks operating outside an outdoor food wort. Ms. Morris stated that temporary permits would still be mailable for speciar events. TMe motion .,as taken to a vote an0 carried unanimvasly. VI. OTHER BUSINESS 1. City Council Update— Nuns Vil. AVjOURN i lie meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m. `( l Z I I Vale ATTEST: �, Aar,n Hadman, Dept. of Community De„elupment 0 e