Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes t"&L Minutes 6-16-83 page 3 recommendations with the stipulation that the 8 new trees are to be 1-!11 cal iper Live Oak trees. Mr. Hansen secondedthemot.ion which passedunanimous1y (4-0~lwith Mr. Kelly abstaining). AGENDAITEM~NO.4: 83-219: Final P lat~ Revi sed plat of Polo Pa rk Place (6. 164 ac res on ..Hwy... . 230......(F.M...... 60)........& County......Road. Mr. Mayoexplalnedthat most of Polo Pa.rk Place was vacated In 1974. This plat would vacate most of what was left, and <further, that the proposed subdivision s.hown<on the origlnalplatwas.never developed. Mr. Martyn asked about the 7 residential lots re- maining, and what would happen to them if this unplatted land goes commercial later to which Mr. Mayo replied that mostof'that entire areals zoned for high density apart- ments, however any developmentwiTlencounter sewer problems, as there is none provided. Further discussion followed conCerning the lots already sold, and Mr. Mayo indicated that some had been sold by metes and. bounds and" perhaps represent i 11 egalsa 1 es . Mr. Hill asked if those 7 remaining lots should be numbered on this plat to which Mr. Mayo replied that they should not. Mr. Kelly made amotion to approve the plat with Mr. Martyn seconding. Motion carriedunanimous1y (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.5: 83-220: Final. Plat- Replat of Lots 20, 21,22 & 23,. Southwest Crossing. Mr. Hansen was excused from participation in this discussion. Mr. Mayo explained that when the townhouse site plan was approved in this area, these four lots were not town- houses, but rather duplexes. They are of the same unit design as the townhouse, but because the lots are on this curve the builder could only attach two units. This replat makes the lots legal duplex lots and will allow the builder to construct the units which should fit into the development well. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve with Mr. Martyn seconding. Motion to approve carried unanimously (4-0-1 wi th Mr. Hansen abs ta in i ng) · AGENDA ITEM NO.6: 83-221: Final Plat - Replat of Lots 9,10 & part of Lot 8 Block 2 West Park Addition. Mr. Mayo.explained that this is an older subdivision and the applicant owns Lots 8, 9 and 10, and the three houses. 1hereplat would create legal lots around the existing single family houses and create a new lot for an additional house to be built. He reminded the Commission that these lots had recently been rezoned from Single Family Residential District R-lto Single Family District<R-"lA. He stated staff recommends approval of this replatwiththecondition that filing of the final plat be held up until utility easements are establlshedwhi"chmeet the approval of the Water & Sewer and Electrical Departments. After a brief discussion, Mr. Hansen made a motion to approve the plat withstaff1s recommendation concerning holding up filing of the plat until satisfactory utility easements are established and Mr. Kelly seconded the motion. Motion to approve with'staffls recommended condltioncarried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. ..7: 83-425: Parking Lot<< Pl an-StoragelParki ngforRepos sessed Vehicles and EquIpment, Lots 8&9, Block 2 Cooner Addition (corner of Jane &.Cooner). Mr. Mayo explained the site plan, located the tractona map and pointed out the revised site plan addresses most of the P.R.C. recommendations with the exception of item number 2 which points out that a solid screen fence is required by ordinance to separate this lot from neighboring residences, and it is staff1s opinion that the proposed slats in the chain 1 ink fence do not meet the spirit of the ordinance. He further pointed out that a rezoning request has been receivedJn the Planning Department and will be heard I \.:TL. I I t t t u L.c..:> 6-l6-83 page 4 :' on July 7th regarding changing the current zoning of R"'S to A-P Mr. Kaiser asked if staff had conferred wlththeCityAttorney concerningthepropr etyof approving a site plan priortoestablishing proper zoning,. and Mr. Mayo said stc! f had not, and that this is not a problem in this case because a permit cannot be issued for the parking lot until the property is properly zoned, and this zoning is now pending. He further pointed out that the bank.haddeveJopedthisgravellotand installed.thefence without being aware of the required zoning and site plan approval, and staff notified the bank of the steps to be taken, and thIs siteplanandthependingrezonlngrequestarethe results of notification. Mr. Hill expressed a desire to receive input from area residents concerning this proposal prior to approval. Mr. Mayo pointed out that this Jsonly a security lot and there will beabare minimum of traffic and no public use of the lot. Mr. Martyn pointed out that the wheelstops have been offered to meet the 8 ft. setback requirements. Mr. Hill expressed anop inion that a 6ft.. fence wi thoutlandscap ing is not a very good buffer in a residential neighborhood, and Mr..Mayo said the problem with providing landscaping would require backing the fence off the property line, and could create a maintenance problem. Mr. . Hansen asked about the ,8 ft. setback and curbing requirements and Mr. Mayo explained the fence is within the 8ft. setback, but the wheelstops have been added to create the 8ft. setback. Mr. Martyn asked the" applicant representative why the revised plan was redrawn without the solid screening fence on 2 sides, and Mr. Arrington said it was the result of a misunderstanding with the architect who drew up the plans and that the bank is planning toi ncludethe:sol id 6 ft. screening fence on two sides as recom- mended in P. R ..C . Mr. Kelly stated he has no problem with this site plan if the screen fence is included so would make a motlontoapprove theplanwlthall P.R.C.- recommendations. This motion died for lack ofa second. Mr. Kelly then made a motion totable this item until the rezoning request is heard at the public hearing. Mr. Martyn seconded this motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM No.8: Other Business Mr. Kaiser asked about the proposed tour of projects for the> new Commissioners and Mr. Mayo asked the Commission to pic:k a time and date for the tour. They chose Thursday, June 23 at 4P.M., and Mr. Mayo said he would make the arrangements. Mr. Hill announced he will soon be appointing a vice-chairman forP&Z; also he is working on a book letconcernin9 pub] 1c heari ngprocedures. Mr. Martyn asked for replacements for P.R.C. and Mr. Kaiser chose July 12th and Mr. Han- sen chose July 26th. Mr. Martyn then made a motion to adjourn; Mr. Kaiser seconded. Mo- t ion carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVED: David B. Hill, Chairman ATTEST: Dian Jones, City Secretary r'-7L. "'"Ul.~":> 7-7-83 page 2 tobr lngback arezonl ng request for the remaining R-5lot. Hr.Ha i ley agreed that direct ion to that. effect shouldbegi ven to staff, . butlt should not be at tached to the motion. Mr. MIller then madeamotJonto recommend approval of the rezoning request with Mr. .Bailey seconding. MotJon carrled 5-0-1 (KellyabstaJned) . AGENDAJTEMNO.4: 83~425: Reconsideration ofaParkln Lot Plan - Storage/Parklngfor RepossessedVehlcles& Equipment, tots Block 2, Cooner Addition. This item was tabled at the June 16, 1983 meetlng. Mr.. Mayo explaIned the site plan and reminded the Commission that Mr. Arrington of the bank had assured" them at the las tmeetingthat.. the pl ans incl udea 6 ft . sol i d screen fence along the two sides adjacent to resIdential development,. but that the archi tect had in- advertentlyomlttedthe notetotnataffect. Mr. Mayo advIsed with that condition, staff recommends approval. Mr. Bailey aSKed if the slats would be included in the rest of the chain link fence andMr.Mayosald~hat would be up to the applicant. Mr. Hill asked if only vehicles could be parked or whether this lot would house motors, etc., which could look messy through a chain linkfenc:e. Mr. Mayo saldtheClty would have some control over what was allowed because the<zoningatthis location would be A-P. Mr. Hansen said that in .his opinion this parkJqg lot plan is below normal A-P standards in several ways, including the lack of landscaping. Mr. Kelly pointed out that this is for a locked, storage area andwillnot be a.publrc parking lot, and further that it will be screened from theresi dent; al areas. . D i scus?i on followed concern lngwhatmi ght be preferred to what is being proposed, after which Mr. ~alser said the way this project has been treated is out of character with the project the applicant has across the street. Mr. Arrington, representative of the applicant reqiliestedpermission to address the Commission, but the Chair refused. Mr. Bailey then mad~a motion to approve the parking lot plan with P.R.C. recommendations, plustheconditlol'1ithat a6 ft. solid screen fence must be included on all four sides and slats must be included in the hurricare..type gates. Mr. Kelly seconded. Motion carriedunanlmously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 83-30]: Preliminary Plat - Foxfire Phase IV (ETJ) Mr. Mayo located the plat, explained that the lots are basically rural one-acre lots, and pointed out that our subdivision regulations require 70ft. rights-of-way, but the County requires 60 ft. R.O.W. with 16ft. easements on each side, and the developers of this have chosen to meet County standards. Mr. Miller asked if it is safe for the Commission to assume that Foxfirewfl1. not become a part of the City soon, and Mr. Mayo replied that is not a safeassumptlQn, and it lshis opinion that if a petition was re- ceived from the residents, the City:wouldconsider annexation. Discussion followed concerning control the City might h~veincETJ areas and theCounty's concern with lack of setbacksfromther ight--of-w"ay.. . . Mr. Hansen asked Mr. Hedderman (who was in the aud j- ence) If the architect has contro:l!of setbacks, and Mr. Hedderman replied that a 50 ft. setback is required. Mr. Miller then made amotion to approve this plat with presubmis- sion recommendatlonsarid Mr. Kelly seconded. Mr. Mayo asked how this motion affects the 70 ft. R.O.W. the City normally"req~ires, and Mr. Miller sai"d the proposed 60 ft. R.O.W. with 16 ft. easements on each side are acceptable. Motion to approve carried unanimously (6-0) . AGENDA ITEM No.6: Other business Mr. Kaiser asked about landscaping ordinances from other cities, and Mr. Miller said he had recently received them from the Assistant Zoning Official and would soon share the information with the Committee. Mr. Kaiser then thanked staff for the recent tour. Mr. Miller then spoke further on the andscaping ordinances he had received and said he is attempting to collate the informat on for the Committee.