Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes p&Z Minutes 8-22-83 page 5 "' AGENDA ITEM NO. 12: 83-229: Southwood Valley Section III. FinalPlat-Regency South-Resubdivision of Lot 35 Block 16 Mr. Mayo explained that this replat represents an "asbuilt"platofa PUD, and the changes are minor from the approved plat, therefore staff recommends approval. Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the replat with Mr. Kelly seconding. Motion carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 13: 83-310: Preli~inaryP1at - Walden Pond Townhomes located between FM 2818 and the extension o.fSouthwestParkway west of Holleman Mr. Mayo explained the PresubmissionConferencerecommendations h~d a1] been met and staff recommends approval as shown. He pointed out that items 2&3 on the report will betaken care of before construction begins and the City Englneer has control over that as 'he will not sign the Final Plat until recommendations are satisfactorily met, Mr. Bailey made a motion to approve the plat wlthMr.Hansen seconding. Motion carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 14: 83-311: Preliminary Plat - One Lil1co1n Place located on.the south side of University Drive Mr. Mayo explained the plat and located the land on a map. He stated that staff has no problem with this plat, other than it would request that the access easements be designated as "private accesseasements". Discussion followed concerning access to Lot.2 from Lincoln, the plans for the extension of Lincoln, the reasons for the inclusion of Item #4 on the staff report being that the street had been shown as a public street on the original plat. Adequacy of the proposed 30ft. drive was discussed, and Mr. Miller stated he believes a wider street is called for and Mr, Martyn said he would prefer that this be a public street. Mr. Pullen said he had no problem with the width ifit is a private easement~ Mr. Mayo said in his opinion, this 30 ft. private access easement would be minimal for the proposed res identi alproJect, and a. 40 ft.. width would probably be better. Mr .Pu 11 en po'i nted out that a private traffic study had been done for these developers and taking into account the A-P zoning and the residential zoning, a minimum street width of 30 ft. would be suffi- cient.. Mr. Mayo then pointed out that a 30 ft. private drive is more efficient than a public 28 ft. street, because it wouldbea fire lane with no parking. Mr. Sailey'made a motion to approve with Presubmissionrecommendations with the deletion of ltem #4 and the addition of>a note that access easements shall be private. Motion seconded by Mr. Miller and carried by.a vote of,6-l with Mr. Martyn voting against it. Mr. Kaiser requested presentation of more information, including the pros and cons of pri- vate access easements 30ft, inwJdth when the Final Plat is considered. .AGENDA 'TEMNO. 15: 83-512: Site Plan Perm'it - Cedar Creek Condominiums located in One Lincoln Place, Mr. Mayo'explained the site plan ." ,stated thereare'some problems with this revised plan and then listed them as being: (l)density is indicated atl6.1dwell ingunits per acre and maxim~m allowed by OrdinanceLn R-4 zoning is 16.0 d.u./acre; (2)clariflcation needed con- cerning the 6" ra ised curbing where park i ngadJoins ., the sidewalk, (3) fi re hyd rants are not shown, although there is,a note about them, (4)buildings #4&#6 are too close if a stair- way is' included, as a stairway ~,~annotextendinto the clear space required by Ordinance a,nd (S)dunlPster locations as shown are questionable and appear to be in the driveway, and sug- gests that the applicant workout a plan with the Director of Publ icServices and let the Planning Department see the results; he further stated that perhaps the use of screens could help delineate the location of the pads._~t.9 the garbage people. .,,,'~ Mr. Martyn made a motion to approve this plan with theadd!tion of a note to include dir- (, '- ~&L Mlnutes 8-22-83 page 6 -", ect ionalscreens fordulTlpsters, theaddi tion of showlngfi re hydrants on the plan asap- proved by the Fire Department, the reduction of the numbe.rof units to meet Ordinance requirements or the rezoning of additi on'a 1 land to accommodate the numbe rofuni ts shown. This motion was withdrawn after discussion concerning problems with overdevelopment of land and the lack of fire hydrants. John Olsen, representative of the deyeloperandemployeeofJerry Bishop & Assoclatescame forward at therequestofthechairma~andsaid that a water line plan has been developed and approved by the Fire Marshall and the fire hydrants had inadvertently been left off this plan. Jack Doble of San Antonio ,and one of the developers came forward at the invi- tation of the chairman and stated they are wIlling to delete one unit from building #11, to meet ordi'nance requirements, Mr. Martyn thenmadeamotlon to approve this .5 lte plan ,wi thanote that 1 un i t wi 11 be deleted from Building #ll,fidre' hydrants> as approved by the FlreDepartment are to be shown on the plan, directional screens must be included around dumpsters and a15 ft. minimum clear space will be maintalnedbetweenall buildings and stairways. Mr. Kelly seconded and the motion carried unanimously (7-0) . AGENDA 'T~M NO. 16: 83-434: Parking Lot Plan ... Philip in Ashford Square. Mr, Hansen was excused from the Commission. Mr. Mayo explained the applicant has been grantedablanketvarlancefrom the ZBA regarding rear 'setbacks, allowing zero lot line construction,andfurtherpolnted out an unfinished note concerning water drainage and asked for clarification. He also pointed out that the entire drIveway must be built as part of this pro] ect,.. and wanted the 'appl i cant to understand thatthls . is a requ iremlent. Mr. Mayo a lsostatedthat staff has requested an overall pl an of Ashford. Square as each proj ect is approved or built, and theappllcanthasnot provided this plan. He recomme.nded that Mr. Blackburn be invited to address theCommissionregardi~g the private drives in this subdivision which the City normally requires to be curbed, but are not so planned in this subdivision. He went on tosta1:e that all projects thus far approved had been approved with curbs, but the developers really do not want to include curbing, but rather have planned to use an inverted crown on the streets which do not use curbing. tv1lr. Blackburn was i nv i tedforward to explain and he stated 'that curbing has not been included, but rather a system offnvertedcrowns.on streets to accommodate drainag~hasbeen developed as a re- sultofa study which will allow planned, engineered metering of water from the project. Mr. Mayo exp 1 alnedthatstaff has no obJ e.ctlons to this as a sort of test case i nPl anned Unit Commercial Developments to see how it will work. The City Engineer agraeed that he has no problem with this plan. Mr.Mi lleraskedabout the unfinIshed note concerning drainage, and Mr. Blackburn said the,. 'draftsman had Inadvertently left the note incomplete, and he would see that it was completed Mr. H' 11 asked Mr. Mayo to amend items numbered 12 & 190nthePBC report ,and he did to reflect: #12: IlaG11 raised curb is requlred.aroundalledgesofall parts of all parking areas ; private access easements wi 11 not becurbed~ and #19: "drai nage must: be handled between the street edge and the curbIng at the edge of the parking easement., Please indi- cate how this isto be done on the site plan." Mr. Miller said that trees sho,uldbe It" caliper to comply with Ordinance. Mr. Kaiser requested a map showing the development of an entire area, not just Ashford Square, and then referred to a Master Drainage Plan. Mr. Pul- len explained the developer has'~preparedaMasterDrainage Plan for the entire Ashford Square only. Mr.6aileythen made a motion to approve the plan with PRe recommendations as amended by-staff and stated above, plus thelncluslon of a note requiring trees to comply with ordinance. Mr. Kelly seconded. Motion carried unanimously (6-0) .(Hansen abstained) ..c....;...--:::,~