Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2 Dl()tion... which....c8I'ried.....by.a . v()te ..... (If.5-()-1 '.. . ,(Martyn "aBst'ttin.ed).. 3 ~ rezoning item is the OO~832 p&Z MInutes 10-20-83 page 4 why not limit the length of time of stay per child. Mr. Kelly said that is not the con- cern of this Commission. Mr. Miller said he would obJect to limiting the length per stay because it might affect the future growth of the center. Mr. Balley said that if the State allows 20 children lnan area this size, he does not think this Commission should llmt tit to' 15. Mr. . Hansen agreed ,and'sai dhe wou ldcons ide r 11m i t ing the number i f there was an external problem'iatthis location, but apparently there is hone. Mr. Callaway conflr,medthatthere Is adequate park' ngfor the shopping center. Votes were cast and the motion to approve, limiting the number of children to 15, carried 4-3 with Bailey, Martyn and Hansen voting against. Mr. Bailey &Mr. Hansen voted no because they did not want to place a restriction on the use permit. AGENDA ITEM'NO.6: 83-117&.83~118: A uestion of oft andtota lli n a roxlmatel 9. acres located .onthe northwestcornedrofStateH i gh- way and.' Barron Road Courtl andSubdlvislon from Agrlculture-Open Space Distric tA-O toSln~leFamllyResldentlaLDlstrict R-l, Single Family Residential District R-IA and Genera 1 Commercial..'. D.l'str-lct C-l. App>l icationsarelnthe.names. of Stephen Baker,etal and Thomas R. Brady" Mr. Callaway explained that the advertising of these rezoning requests had indicated IIpend- ing annexationll, but that the area has ,since been annexed into the City; He then explained the request, broke down the acreage per zoherequested and gave the area land uses and zonings. Stated that the Comprehensive Plan indicates this area wi 11 be commercial,office, low and medium density residential, and specifically that the northwest corner of Barron Road and SHG is reflected as medi urn density residenti a 1... Refurther stated that sta~fagrees with the location of the requestedzoning,buthasconcernswlththe requested depthoff~the commercial zone, asJt does not comply with the minImum depth (400 ft.) which isrecommended In approved development policIes, and the lack of a buffer (such as A-P) to separate the general commercial and the low density residential areas. He stated that the R-IAarea is already platted and ,would be dIfficult tochange,andcites alternatives being otherz:Qning of the requested c:ommercialland,orhotificatibn to the applicant that si te plans wi 11 get careful scrutiny at the time they are presented. Discussion followed concerning the ;actual .depth of the C-l zone (3l0ft.,offSHG) and then Mr. HIll pointed out that the preliminary and f I na 1 plats were approved and wondered why staff Is just now concerned with these 2 items., Mr.. Ca 11 away pointed out that eva luationof rezoning requestsd i ffer from s tanclards used for plats. . Mr. Mayo stated that he had dIscussed these problems with the appl icant and had encouraged a 400 ft. mInimum depth for allY commercial development. Mr. Hill stated that these things should be covered during plattlngtime.Mr.Mayo agreed, explaining that platting Is different from ,rezoning, but that these concerns are not something new just tonight, but staff'had In the past encouraged the applicant to make the commercial area a mlnlmum400 ft. depth. Mr. Mayb reminded the Commission again that zoning is different from platting, and that an ,effort is. made to keep platting separate from zoning, further pointing out that a plat does not lock a developer into something he cannot change and the desired 400 ft. minimum depth and the buffer has been discussed with the developer in the past. Mr. Miller asked about the standing row of trees in the drainage area, and wondered if they would be considered a buffer,. Mr. Mayo asked Mr. Cal1awaylf the depth of the C-l is out- side the requIred R.O.W.andMr.Callaway indlcatedthat it is. The public hearing was opened and Don Garrett, engineerlsurveyor of this project came for- ward and pointed O\.lt the depth on the map is incorrect and needs to be shifted and further that the trees In thedra I nage area wIll be used as a buffer. He also pointed out a City of Bryan trahsmtssionllnewhich cannot be shifted and is a factor in planning the develop- mentof this land. Mr. Garrett said the proposed C-l tract ls455 ft. deep from the exist- IngR.O.VI., and 344 ft. from the extended R.O.W. Mr. Martyn asked if the applicant would object to a buffe'rlng zone,andMr, Garrett said that a major street and the trees in the drainage wo'uld serve as buffers"and fLlrtherthat this would not be strip commercial zoning. Mr. Miller asked which zone the tree line is In arid~r~ Garrett said the trees are on the zoning lIne' ~nd'nthe batk yards of the single famIly lots. p&Z Minutes 10-20-83 page 5 there is ~dequate depth take the ~.O.W. Mr. Mayo P&Z Minutes 10-20-83 page 6 review and careful planning, and development could be controlled by .the Commission. Mr. Miller made a motIon to recommend approval of this Item as requested with Mr. Bailey se- conding. MotIon carried unanImously (7-0). out that the re- Assistant Oirector of Planning Callaway presented the item. He explained the requesta,nd gave the acreage per zone requested, and the area land uses and zonings. He pointed out.that the Comprehensive Plan -Plan 2000 indicates this area will be commercial, office low apd medium density residential, and sp~cifically that the northwest corner of Barron Road and State Highway 6 is reflected as medium density residential. He fu~ther stated that the staff agrees with the location of the requested zone, ,but has concerns with (I) the reql.1e.sted depth of the commercial zone, as it does not comply with the minimum depth (400. ft.) which is recommended in 004135 PAGE 3 some Agenda Item No.4- tract. Councilman Anderson tract. the above Councilman Boughton seconded the motion which passed Councilman McIlhaney stated that she did not-:like to make too many exceptions to th<eComprehensive Plan -Plan 2000. Park. PLATS: Block 28 , 004136