HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
....,
asked how a duplexcouldbe.located iria single falIlilyresidential district and Mr.
Callaway replied that. particular structure predates the zoning ordinance and is
therefore a non-conforming structure. . Mr. MacGilvraY asked how a second residence
could be built on this land without replatting and Mr. Callaway replied that as long
as all setbacks are met and the land is under one ownership, more than one principal
residence can be built.
Mr. . Dresser stated that altho\lgh nothing being proposed on: this resubdivision plat is
against any regulations, he. personally agrees with the resjidents opposing this who
have expressed a desire to preserve the neighborhoodasitlis, and pointed out there
are several places in the area where this could happen agalinand if it does, the
character of the neighborhood>will be changed. Mr. Kaiser! statedthat the applicant
is not proposing to do anything other. than to meet legaltequirements,and since a
second house could be built on this land anyway, it ie! likely that if that were done
without the city having anY control in thelllatter, an application would someday
follow for replatting so a legal .sale couldb.e made. H~addedthat >although he is
sympathetic to the voiced concerns, he thinks in this particular case, what is being
proposed is good. Mr. MacGilvraystated that there will be 2 lots and 2 houses on
the lots which are very similar in sbe, th~refore the character will not be changed
very much. Mr. Wendler stated that because an additional house could be built by the
owner of the property without properplattil).g,and th.en replatting would probably
follow after the fact , he thinks this is Proper,. adding that he does not think this
Commission should restrictsomeone's use of his property if there is compliance with
all City codes and ordinances.
Mr. MacGilvray then made a motion to approvethisresub.division plat being proposed.
Mr. Brochu seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 6-1 (Dresser opposing).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5. 87...;400: . Consic:l~rJJ.~ion~fe.sta~lishi~g minimum
parking. .requirements~~I".equil"edbySec'tion'9.3 .of\Ordinance ..163B
(the .Zon.in.gordin.anB.~')(for.....ahos~itaJ. ..~Stln.~s~()ne Center)...to . be
1 ocat ed ....s out h of.BarronRoad...and~as t '.' '.01. S.H,.6'in ..the ."Barron Park
subdivision.
Mr. Callaway explained that the zoning Qrdinange iswr~ttento give authorization for
establishing parking requirementsforhospit~Jst5>the. Planning &. Zoning Commission.
He further explained that theP.R.C. reviewedandapproyedthe site plan, pending
approval. by. theP&Z of the proposed parking. He stated that.. staff has reviewed
requirements from lO<different Texas cities, and none require as many spaces as are
being .'proposedbythisapplicant. -
Mr. Callaway then explained that the Commission cannowestfiblish minimum
requirements for hospitals which can be. used for any fu.turehospital projects, . or it
can act 01). this. specific project and requiretha.tany future projects come back
before ..the COminission to be . reviewed on an indiyidua.lbasis. .. He pointed out that
the proposal being .madefor thisfacilit}'7xceed.s S.tatestandards (as is. pointed out in
the letter fromthearchitect),as.wellasstandardsoftheother Texas cities
studied. .
Discussion followed regarding the extremes represented in staff's study which range
front 12 to 108 spaces being required. for this. facility, with Mr. Callaway indicating
that although he. doetin()t..kriow. the exact r.easonT()rithevariation of requirements, he
would speculat~that p~rhaps some.of the ord~nances.wereold and outdated, or perhaps
the size of the City or, the availability of <public transportation may have had some
bearing on establishing the requirements.
P&ZMinutes
1-15-87
Page 3
Mr . Stewart stated thatpe:rhaps this project ispr()pos,ing to in.cludemore than enough
parking spaces ,buts ince nobody seems . tob.e sure ,hedoes! not see how this
Commission ....couJ.dpossiblyset.8 .standardfQF all.. fut1.lreisimilarprojects ,and perhaps
it would be wise ifth~qoIDInission were to consider> e~chprojecton<anindividual
basis . Mr. MacGilvray.statedthat hewouldliketos.eedlessparking and more
landscaping, add.ing thatl1~believes . there is an'dover abundance of parking in this
City already.
The architect for the project, . Herman Lee, was invited forward to chlrify reasons for
thenwnber of parking sPClpes being proposed for this project, and he stated that
because 36 of the bedsinT:~his facili ty will be for adolescents and children, it has
. been determined thatmor~;:visitorswill be expected than for. a normalpsychiatric
hospital which houses only adult patients. Another person from theau.die]1ce
explained...thata complete<drive-around is required for fire protection" 'so removal of
a few parking spaces would not greatly affect the.amount of pavement at this
facility.
After more generaldiscus~sion...about t.he...differences in parking requirements in
various cities, Mrs. Sawtelle made amotion to approve the p~rking proposed for this
facility. Mr. Stewart 'seconded the motion which> carried by a vote of 6-1
(MacGilvray) .
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6. Othe~busiDess.
Mr. Gallaway stated he would like to bring thfaCommisaion up-to-date on the status of
the work done on theComprehensi ve plan and Mr. . Kaiser . asked him to wait for this
discussion until....after all"other ..business' had 'been..addressed.
Mr. . Welldlera~ked~hatcoIls~derationtobe given to hospitals and similar types of
facilities on an individual basis rather than to set a standard to follow. Others
agreed.
Mr. MacGilvray stated that he did.notwaIlttolet ..thismeetingend without .taking the
opportunity to publicly thank former, Director of Planning Al Mayo, who had recently
resigned, for his many years of service toboth.the City and. this Commission. He then
so moved to makeamotion\to<expressthispublicly.Mr.Wendlersecondedthe
motion. Mr. Kaiser then reiterated the motion andexpandedit,asfollows: "To
express .'. appreciationf!,om ..... the Planning and . Zoning Commission for the pleasure it has
had in relying upon Mr. Mayo's expertise, good judgment, and sincere recommendations,
notwi thstanding some. of the. interestingdiscussions'and sidebar.comments which have
taken place" . Voteswere'castandtheUmotiontopublicly exp:resstheab.ove stated
appreciation to Mr. Mayocarriedlinanimously(7-0).
No one else had any other 'business, so Mr. Kaiser turned the floor over to Mr.
Callaway for discussiollofthe. updating qf the Compr~hensive Plan. Mr. Callaway
stated that drafts> of the sections 'covering population, goals and objectives have
been distributed.. totheConnnissioners;dpafts'of. the cOmmercial development and
industrial development sections are comp~eteandbeingreviewed by the staff at this
time; work is underway on thehousin,gseption and>sh.ouldbe complete by the end of
January; and information is now being gathered for a review of the Capital Improvements
section and the Thoroughfare section.. IrlDec~mbera schedule was prepared and
distributed pyMr. Mayo,b\lt Mr. Callawa~istatedhe As not .sure if this is the best
schedule to follow in reviewing the plan,yand asked> if the Commission wanted to
discuss the best approach to take atthi~,meeting,()r to set aside some time at the
next meeting for that discussion. He adqed> that he would lil<e to re,ceivesome 'input
from the Commission regarding the form atid/orscope.thereview and subsequent
P&Z Minutes
1~15-87
Page 4