HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes9 ~'
r, p
.:~
Mrs. Kee then reported that staff has identified no conflict between this: request/permitted uses-and existing
surrounding land uses or zoning classifications. Staff has further determined that the requested zone and
1 associated uses are in compliance with the uses reffe~ed on the future land use plan and development
policies {regarding depth :and location of commercial uses at major intersections).
Mr, Dresser asked if the limitation of the existing sewer 'ne is a Ci or the evelo er' n Mr. Smith
i
replied that it is probably a City burden, but there is a aqua a capaci ~ e exi Ong ~ line along Holleman
~ is used. He pointed out there appears to be same infiltration of the line along the southern boundary of this
property, but no new line is being: planned at that locaton at this. time.
i
The public hearing. was opened. Roy Hammons, engineer for the applicant came forward and tated that
while he had;very little to add to the report presented by staff, the plans are to use both existing ewer lines
while working closely with the Cityto control the use of the overtaxed'line, He added hat only preliminary
planning has been done toward development of thisland for tentative proposed retail uses, but during that
planning, no potential forma}or variances for development have been identified.
Mr. Dresser asked if the intent is to develop his as a singfe property and Mr. Hammons replied hat plans
are to develop the entire 18 acres as one site .plan.
~'
Mr. Michel asked Mr. Hammons i# he is at liberty: to say what uses are planned other than "retail" and Mr.
Hammons replied that he is not, bu# he introduced Robert Todd as another associate of Mr. Culpepper's
who might be able to answer that question.
Mr.` Todd came forward and"'stated that he is unable to give any specific information at this time, other the
plans are to develop a shopping center.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Dresser asked if staff has considered traffic impacts of C-1 vs. R-1 and Mr. smith explained that while no
impact analysis has been done of this time, staff has been unable to identify any problems at this time, and
does not anticipate any overall negative impact from commercial development.
Mr. Esmond asked how the western boundary Line is defined and Mrs. Kee stated that it is not platted, but is
being separated out of a large 20 acre tract to the west. Mr. Hammons came forward to explain that the ,
western boundary line is at this time an arbitrary line being determined by the prospective buyer and the
current-landowner. He `added that while it is' not defined at this time, it'will become the western property line
at the time of the sale transaction.
Mr Esmond asked how a parcel of land can be rezoned without sper~fic definition and Mr. Hammons stated
that it wl! be specifically defined by direction and metes and bounds in a description. Mrs,: Kee added that
for the purposes of rezoning, staff is satisfied that this is an'adequate description. Mr: Hammons explained
that the line has been established and defined on paper, and will be surveyed later.
Mrs. Bankspointed out that there is one line along the south that.-neither her office nor the applicant is sure
about, blut it appears there might be an angle on the corner of Texas Avenue and this property which is
wrong in the:description supplied. by Mr. Hammons. She added that wherever the mistake is, the property
will not-:dose: with the ,description supplied.
Mr. Hammons stated the northern boundary fine of the Parkway Plaza subdivision, a :platted subdivision
which is filed for record with the county, will be used in thedescription.
Mr. Esmond asked if the property will be surveyed before the Counal meeting and'Mr. Hammons replied.
that it can be if ~t is re wired.
q
Mrs. Davis asked how many landowners are involved in this: transaction and Mr. Hammons replied hat as he
recalls, there:-are 10 or 11 small tracts of land with ~ owners.
Mr. Michel asked what possible uses are allowed in R-6 zoning and Mrs. Kee replied that multi-family or any
residential development under the restrictions of the specific zoning district would be allowed,. plus
conditional uses i# permitted.
Mr. Esmond stated emphatically he would feel much .more comfortable with this request if the applicant
would bring in a metes and bounds description of the tract before the actual rezoning by Council takes
place. Mr. Michel stated that he agrees with Mr. Esmond. Mrs. Banks stated that her department is very
comfortable with the description applied for 3 of the propertylines, and has question about only the 1
corner;
~ Mr. Esmond then :made a motion to recommend .approval of this request as submitted with the condition
that a correct metes and bounds description is supplied by the applicant before this request is considered
by the City Council. Mr. Gentry seconded the mo#ion which carried unanimously {6-0).
~~~ ~1 tg~~ q ~ ~0i`~ ~ , q ~ i. Mgg ~ ~ % [~Fpe: ,`"~ ~ W ~'~ ~"' w ~~ tar