HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
p&Z Minutes
8-22-83
. ,.~....:_p age 2
~
~ ....,..............~:.~
.::. . .,~~.-"""''f ~...... '.
. '.. . .
';'Mr"~"'<'Mayo""ex'plalned the request' and loc'ated'the 1 and on a map . . "He' st:a'ted that staff recom-
. mends approval as this rezoning would be in compliance. with both the Comprehensive Plan
and a small land Use Planwhlch has been approved by theP&Z and the Council ,and because
'A-P z.oning is a good buffer between' heavier commercial development found at the intersec-
ion and the resid~ntial area to the south, Mr. Bailey asked how deep the recommended change
at an earlier meeting had been and Mr. Mayo explained. Mr. Hill asked what is shown on the
current zoning map for this area ~ndMr.Mayo said he assumed it is shown asR-l. Mr. Hill
asked how this would affect the ta~es on the )and,and Mr. Mayo replied that he did not
;know, that the City has a major zoning plan, but the taxing authority can tax at other stan-
dards. Mr. Hill suggested that an 'up-to-date zoning map 'be sent to Mr. Winn's office. ~Mr.
Kelly asked if there are any residences abutting this land, and Mr. Mayo replied there is one
residence~and from the number of vehicles outside this residence, he would guess it is a
rental house. The public hearing wasop~ned, but no one spoke, so the public hearing was
closed, Mr.. Barley made <a motio'nto recommend approval of this request and Mr. Miller
seconded the motTon, wh i en carried unanimously" (7-0) .
(\
('"
Mr. Mayo explained the plan which would be developed on the land',~:~;f~~'t'~dto .' in the last
.,~'(. .f tern on the agenda ,". Mr ,,,Mayo then ':referredto item #Sm onthePRC .reportc;onc,ern i ng 1 and-
...,' 'i"~ . ./.; , '. "','".. ' ',' ' .'.' "., ....... '" .
..;?~~~4;,.scap lng notes, and questi oned whether a 11 the trees shown onthes itep 1 all wi 11 be:there'i:tt
,',:',~t:~,the t.ime of fnspectionforaC.O. ~lso,therowofparking on thenorth':'sideis shown with
<,;:~L.,20 ft. deep spaces and will cause al eonfl iet with the corner and should l;>e shortened to
~tJ~7,18 ft. with an overhang.. Upon resolving these problems staff.,would reconimend~pproval~
'iyi;1tih.'Mr. tiillaskecl for an explanation from, someone who had attendedthePRCrevi,ewandMr.MClrtyr
:S;tj}$l)':indicatedhehacl been Jnattendance andJt had been pointed out~~'asn1::he'"'reporf'indicates, .
~~tl!:~i.that additional landscaping Information was a condition for the recommendation of approval.
,tt;riMr. Miller fndicatedthathe did not thinkthe p&Z Commission should have toreviewindlvi-:-
]i:;~~"dual detaj'ls of sfte plans and that he bel ieves that there are enough problems with this pro-
',':-~;r:1:::'.:.'."~ject to warrant looking at it again. Mr. Hill asked if the type of landscaping the Cornmis-
}:;:;i~.,sfon desires was brought up at the PRC review and Mr. Mayo replied that during discussion
.:':...:.:r- ; . more information was requested and notes have been added, but size of the trees ,and the
," type of groundcoveror shrubbery are st i 11 not shown, and staff has concern' as to whether
. -~~')
../.~' the notes which have been added are adequate. He stated th:at if this plan is. approved as
shown, City inspectors will basically look for everythJ.ng shown on the plan~
Mr. Miller said he is concerned with the lack of trees in islands as required by Ordinance
and whether or not the existing post oak trees will survive the construction process. He
.:would like a landscaping plan to be shown on this project because the Commission should not
. plan any projects, but should only review for approval, therefore he would make a motion'to
table this item, and informally recommend that a landscaping plan be developed by theappli~
cant. Mr. Martyn seconded the motion to table until a satisfactory landscapi plan is