Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes MIJ~UTES CITY OF COltEGESTAT10N, TEXAS Planning and Z0nJng ..Commiss ion June?, 1984 7: 00 .P...M. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS.....ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Chalrman.Hansen, Members Stallings, Brochu, Martyn, Tongco & Kaiser Memb er ...Mac Gllvray Directorof Planni ngMayo, Ass' t. Director bf Plann irlg Callaway, City EnglneerPullen, Zoning Official Kee, <Planning Analyst Longley, Ass't. Zoning OfffcialJohnson, Ass't.CityAttorneyLocke&Planning Tech Volk AGENDA.. rTEHNO. 1: Admlnlstrationof Oath of (jfflce to new Commissioner ChafrmanHansen Administered the Oath of Office to new commissioner Celia Stallings. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: of Minutes-meeting of May 17,1984 Mr. , Ma rtyn referred to an error in thef irs tl Lne of the 1 ast paragraph of page 3 ,sta ti ng that he had asked fb.radefinltibnfromtheCity Attorney rather than Mr. MacGilvray. No other changes were requested,. so with that one change, Mr. Martynmade.a motion to approve the minutes withMr, Brochu seconding. Motion carried 4-0-2 (Stallings & Kaiser). AGENDA ITEM NO.. 3: .Hear.Visitors ( No one spoke. Mr. Callaway located the tract,explaJnedthecur'rent zoning ,a.djacent zon ing and area zoning,asweltasthe'larlous useS inthe area. He theng.;1vea. brief outline of the his- tory of .the zoning on this tract, stating that the current A-P zoning is the result of City initiated rezoningfrolTl A-P & (:-1 toA-P in 1982, concluding that staff recommends denial of this request and retentionoftbe existing A-P zoning for the following 3 reasons: (1.)The tract abuts an existLngsinglefamilyresidential neighborhood, no provision is offered fora buffer, and C-lzbning is not compatible with single family residential development; {2} thecul"'>rentA-Pzoningls in campl iance with theCity's Land Use Plan; and, (3)The requestedC-lzonLngwauldallowuse of the tract for high-traffic generators which could compound access and cLrculatlon problems inthls area. Mr. Callaway then re- ferred toaconceptuqlproJectplan for this.tract, explaining. that consideration of the rezoning request>shouldbebased on the zoning district requested, not on a proposed site plan. Mr. Martyn asked why the Cfty had initiated rezon i ng of this tract i n1982 and was tol d that both an in depth study of the area.;1nd the in i tiation of rezoni ng were the resul t of a request from area residents.. Mr. Hansen askedClty Engineer Pullen when the Bypass Frontage Road will be aone~way stre~t ,.towhich Mr. Pu 11 en rep 1 i ed that the date is un- known. Mr . Hansen then asked hIm what the impactofa project such as thi s conceptua 1 plan depicts w()uld beonth.is areatowhfchM\r. .Pullen repl ied' that a study by staff is now. underway, but results are undetermlnedat this time. f.""~ ' 6-7-84 page 2 The public hearlngwqs opened. George Ball came forward as a representative of the owner of the tract, explaining that C-1 has been requested for the entire tract~ as the current A-P zon; ngona portior-rof it does not allow the fullest use of the land, and the proposed project (office/warehoLJse) would require C-1 zoning. He then stated that a small office!. showroomlwarehouseproJectwould require C-l zoning. He went. on to say that he could not guarantee that thl?project>woul dbe the one bu i1 ton this site, but the owners of the land have assured hIm that It.wouldhappenif C-l zoning lsgranted. He stated that the proposed plan has not been rev iewedw iththe net ghborhood, but the developer' would prob- ably be willing to do so. Mr. Hansen.asked him if an attempt has been made to come up with an A-PIC'-1 plan wlth>a buffer, to whichMr. Ball answered that has not been considered at thisti:me. Mr. Kaiser asked if a developer could develop this site with the current zoning and Mr. Ball answered that '.t .could be done, but C-l zoning would allow a more flexible project. Mr..Hansenaskedstaff ifC-N&A-P zoning would be considered, but Mr. Callaway repl iedthat C-N zonlngrestrlcts the tract tb a 2 acre maximum size, and further, that this area is alreadywer.lserved with developed Neighborhood-Business (C-N) projects. ( Gail Griffin came forward, stating that she is representIng the neighborhood which had turned in the. peti t lonreflect lng opposltlonto th is request. She sai dshe had some questions regarding the buyer0f this land, and had heard itis a drilling company, stating that it puzzles her what a drilling company would be selling, and ind,Jcating,that there woWld prbbablybe/a needforl.arge 18whe~1 type trucks fo.rdelivede~, stating: that the traffic and the nolse would>adversely affe.ct the established resid~nq,al area adjacent to this tract. She spoke of the already dangerous intersec.tion of Texas Avenue' and the Bypass, stating that when the Frontage Rbadbec0mes one-way,the orily',;access to this tract would be th;rough an 'additional curb cut on Texas Avenue, which would qdd to the'danger, or through Mile Drive, which is a residentiaL street and Is neither paveQ norgutt.ered, and not m.eant for heavy traffic. Mr . Martyn asked for the percent of residents who had s i gried the petition pnesented,and>shestated thepetitJon represents 100% of the residents of Mile Drlve.AsslstantCfty Attorney Locke came forward tbclarifya point of law concern- ;ng votIng procedures when. petItions are involved. Noone else spoke.. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Kaiser asked staff if this tract and curren,t zon lng has Iltigation pend i'ngand Mrs. Locke replied that 1 tdoes ,g i vi ng a very brief outline of the case. Mr. Martyn spoke of his reasons for being against this part i.cul ar request; whIch include the fact that he deemsJt inappropri ate to rezone 1 and which has litlgatJonpendlng,andtheCityapparently thlnksthe best uses for this land areA-P projects,notC-lprojects. He pointed out that theP&Z Commission's job is to zone land for suitable useandnotforpartlcular projects. He added that C-l zen i ng .i s not compatible with this residential area. Mr. Kaiser made a motIon to deny this rezoning request with Mr. Martyn seconding the mo- t ion, whi en carried unanimol.ls.ly (6-0). AGENDAfTEMNO.5: 84-71l: A. ub llc< hearing on the uestion of a Cond iti ana 1 Use Permit. for a ChIld Care Genter in-home at 1403 Gunsmith for a maximum of 6 children. App 1 i cat ion; slnthenameof>,Darre 11 Barton Merrell. t1r. Callawayexplain.ed that in-home day care is allowed by ordinance for up to 3 children wi thout auseper.mlt , but when the requestlncludes 40r more ch ildren,ordi nance requ ires theP&Z to i ssueauseperm ft. ,Staff would recommend that <i f.th i s permit ls granted, the Commission establIsh a maximum number of children to be allowed, and pointed out that in the past thisCommlssion<hasl imited in--homecare te6to 10 children. ,Mrs. Tongco 5 tated .that the app llcant Is Mr. Merrell, but she wondersw~o is the owner. Mr. Callaway suggested that perhaps the applicant could supply that information. Public hearing was opened. proposed. proJect. ,Commiss,ione<rJ'ones askedf.f Mr. Cruse had any plans for warehousing on the site. Mr. Cruse stated that he had no such plans at this time. (. The public hearing was closed. had set be.careful Commissioner . Swe,eney suggested th~t A-Pzoning would exclude wareho~si.ng. Mr.'Cruse stated that he had not eonsideredthls. Commissioner Etter moved that the Commission recommend denial of · ,the requested rezoning. The motion was second.ed byCQmmissioner Sweeney. Cl1airman Stover pointed out that the reque$t would go to City Council at their next regular meeting. Conuni.sstoner.Sweeneypoi.nt~d out that alternatives for the use of the land e,xisted and should be considered. The motion was approved with Commi.ssioner Watsonabstaiping. 01 T Y COU N elL 7 I 8 /7 8 ( City Planner Mayo gave background i'nformation. on ,the 8.61 acres under consideration. CouneilmanAdams made a motion that the mat:terbetabled untiltlie developer could meet with the residents affected bytherezonillg. Coun~.:fJ.manHalter pointed out that the motion was out of d i hearing had been called. orer s ncea public Mayor Bravenecsaid the publfchear1..ng had not yet been opened. -1- repre;senta- He commented that the and b1.s.neiSltDors' Ka~()r.. Bravenec dec:la1S'ed the publi.c hear ing closed. t ~ I . eounc:!lnIan...Halte~ seconded the moti.oR. t , J. ~ .\ ( PI Z 1/ 4/ 79 Commls'sionerJones pointed out that the average single story house was between . ( 18 and Z5 f~et tall at the eves. Mr. Bormann stated that the residents were. not affraid of theA-P zoning but that they had no assurance that the plan would be bui It as shown byMr.C.ruse. Mr".. . Oarre I . Dav is a realist i c zone ajthough A~Pmi9ht be 60 . foot buffer. -2 - Jones and approved by the fo Ilo.wi"9 Abstainlng:\iatson I'f . . ~ J 1 j Mr..Ronn1e CJ!'uset, 2906 Brot'her$ Blvd. presented a rendi.tion of the proposal and answered questions of the.Counc:l.l. c thel"ezon1.ng required a 314 vote approvaloy .l to the, t'ezoning with a 25 foot The Public Hearing was closed. for ( Hazen. Adams. Mayor Bravenec " P&Z613182 -.3 - ft. I (~ Discussion followed concern ing the Cornmi ttee to stucfythe above area ,andi t was decided tha'ttheCommittee would be ClPpointedduringOtherBuslnesson the agenda' . PI Z 71 1 I 8 2 ... 4- !14 i. It (: (~ ( -5 - 01 T 'Ie OU'N CILe 18/82 . ::..) (, a \.;. -7- spake in .He lfnavingtwo zones on this tract would cause access he a.s'te p.robably P~ause, Runnels This act.ioncreat.ed Ordinance No. 1384. -L ....8....