HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
Senior Planner Kuenzel informed the Commission that she would discuss the access issues with
those departments prior to the City Council meeting to see if additional access is needed for
emergency vehicles.
Commissioner Gribou stated that since the commercial property is undeveloped, fire lanes could
be placed throughout the site for emergency vehicles instead of providing additional access to
Lincoln Avenue. He stated that if at all possible, true access should be avoided through the
proposed single family development.
Commissioner Lane stated that he disagrees with the requirement of the brick wall primarily due
to the fact thatcurrent.ordinancesrequire screening between.single family and commercial uses at
the expense of the commercial development. Instead of requiring the home builder to pay for the
additional screening, the City would benefit more if those funds were put into the development
instead ofa requirement that the commercial developer is required to meet.
Commissioner Gribou stated. that the City cannot tie the construction of the wall to the ,adjacent
property. The Commission has. the discretion to require it with the rezoning of the. subject
property. He stated. that he wanted to ensure the protection of the existing single family
homeowners in the.neighborhood.
The original motion to recommend approval of the rezoning with the relocation of the masonry
wall passed (4 - 1)~ Acting Chairman Lane voted in opposition to the motion.
AGENDA ITEM NO.3: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request of block14A of
Southwood Valley Section 19. located on the southeast corner of the F.M. 2818 and
Southwood intersection from C..1 Qeneral Commercial to R-4Low Density Aparl;lnents.
(95-101V
Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the< staff report and recommended approval of theprqposed
rezoning request. The subject propert~ includes 1.64 acres bound on four sides by theiri~ts-of-
way of Summit, Hilltop, Southwood, ~d the access road for F.M. 2818. The request will change
lhe zoning from C-1 General Commer~ial to R-4 Apartment BuildingsILow Density... T~eLand
psePlan reflects this site asretailco~ercial, however, R-4 would not be incontlictmth the
surrqunding land uses which includePttblic ~ses to the east and west and multi-family: u~~st() the
~outhand north. In addition, under th~current zoning and lot configuration, the site .~01.lldon1y
lend itself well. to development ofa st~p. srppping center which is discouraged by Development
Policies. Seven surrounding property ()\VllerS were notified with no response.
, ,
Acting Chairman Lane opened the publtchearing.
Representative of the applicant, Earl Ij"a~el. of Garrett Engineering approached the Commission
and stated that the subject property wi'l br qivided into four equal buildable lots for one fourplex
on each lot. He offered to answer any ~u~stions pertaining to the proposed development.
Acting Chairman Lane closed the publi~ h~aring.
P & Z Minutes
February 2, 1995
Page 40f7
Commissioner Lightfoot moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request of block 14A of
Southwood Valley Section 19 located on the southeast corner of the F .M. 2818 and Southwood
intersection from C-1 General Commercial to R-4 Low Density Apartments with staff
recommendations. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.4: Consideration of a preliminary and final plat for the Bird
Pond Addition located south of the Foxfire Subdivision in the City's E. T.J. (95-302 & 202)
Senior .Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report for both the preliminary and final plat. The
subject property is located just outside the City limits. The preliminary plat" shows one single
family lot (0.98 acres) and one reserve tract (the remainder) to reflect a previous subdivision. The
final plat is of the 0.98 acre single family lot only, the reserve tract is not being final platted at this
time. Council will consider a contract for sewer service as part of the final plat. An annexation
petition has previously been accepted by the City Council but there has been no direction as to
when to begin annexation proceedings. Staff recommended approval of both the preliminary and
final plats with the presubmission conference notes.
Representative of the applicant, Earl Havel with Garrett Engineering approached the Commission
and stated that he is currently working with the County to schedule the plats for the
Commissioners Court.
Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the preliminary and final plats of the Bird
Pond Subdivision with staff recommendations. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which
passed unopposed (5 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.5: Consideration of a variance request to the paving
requirements for a portion of the rear drive surface for the proposed Coca-Cola Warehouse
Building to.be located'on the north side of Sebesta Road approximately 200' west of Foxfire
Drive. (94-424)
Project Engineer McCully presented the variance and recommended denial of the request. The
proposed warehouse on Sebesta Road is required to provide access to all points of the building
for fire department response. To. meet this. requirement, the applicant chose to provide a
minimum width lane around the building which connects with the driveway and parking areas at
the front ofthe building. In addition, in order to meet the City screening requirements for trash
receptacles, the dumpster pad was placed behind the building. adjacent to the fire lane. This drive
lane will therefore need to accommodate emergency vehicles, sanitation trucks, as well as cars and
delivery trucks lfSed for the business. In accordance with Ordinance Section 9.2, ~l.off street
parking .. areas, including. access drives, must be surfaced in. concrete or asphalt,. ... and must. be
curbed. On Janl,Jary 17, 1995, staff received a request that the drive lane around the rear of the
building be treate9 asa temporary Parking lot, or be considered for a variance~ in eit~er case to be
allowedtouse~avelsurfacing inst~adof asphalt or concrete. The Ordinance onlYiprovides (or
temporary (gravel) parking lots where they are not needed to meet other ordinance requirements.
As this is not the case here, the only recourse.isto meet the Ordinance or seek a variance.
P & Z Minutes
February 2, 1995
Page 5 0/7