Loading...
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