HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesa ~;
Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request and preliminary plat with the staff
recommendations. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request .for lot 14, block T of the
University Park Section II Subdivision totaling 2.9 acres and located along the north side of University
Drive, approximately 100' west of .Spring Loop from A-P Administrative Professional to C-B Business
Commercial. (97-101)
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the site is located in the middle of the University
Drive Corridor (a.k.a. Overlay District) and in the Huddle of an area that was originally intended to become an
office strip between the retail commercial areas. located at the ends of the corridor. However, much of the office
strip has been rezoned to C-B ,including the two tracts located immediately adjacent to the subject tract: The
corridor is intended to become an attractive, commercial entrance into the City, and the requested rezoning would
further this goal. The intended use is for ahotel development. The University Drive Corridor Study,.which was
adoptedby Council in 1991, recommended a mix of commercial and office uses for the majority of the University
Drive. frontage extending from Tarrow to the East Bypass. The'intent of the recommendations was to encourage
an attractive.entrance into the City through land use and aesthetic controls. Council approved a new commercial
district, which lists a range of uses such as hotels, restaurants, and retail, but prohibits convenience stores and
service stations. The lots that had been zoned C-1 during...the 1980's were .rezoned.. to the new C-B District in
1992 to ensure uses would be in compliance with the corridor plan. The Overlay District was created and applied
to the corridor as well., This district contains specific aesthetic: requirements. and restrictions. At the time that the
new corridor restrictions were in the process of being implemented, a rrezoning from A-P to C-B was requested on
the subject tract. That request was. denied due to the. goal of maintaining a substantial amount of office zoned
property sandwiched between two C-B strips on the north side' of University Drive. Two months later, the two
tracts located in the strip intended for office use were rezoned to' C-B with the condition that they be platted into a
single lot. These tracts are. located. to the.. east of the .subject tract along University. The zoning map still reflects
the original R-4 and A-P zoning' on these tracts because the 'condition of rezoning to C-B has not yet. been
satisfied. However,:.. it is anticipated that the tracts will eventually develop. as C-B .uses. Staff recommended
approval of the rezoning request with the condition that a 20' landscape buffer area be installed across the
northern property line adjacent to the R-4 zoning line.
Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing.
Representative of the applicant, Parvis Vesalli, approached the Commission and offered to answer questions
pertaining to the rezoning request.
Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Massey moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request with the staff recommendations.
Commissioner Gribou seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Consideration of a final plat of the Technology Business Park. totaling 20.9
acres divided into 23 Research and Development lots located on the southeast corner of Sebesta Road and
State Highway 6 Frontage Road. (97-206)
Graduate Civil. Engineer Homeyer presented the staff report~and stated that this plat is located approximately
1,300 feet south of the intersection. of Sebesta Road and State Highway 6. The purpose of this plat is to subdivide
20.77 acres into twenty three Research and Development (R&D) lots,. of which lots 3 through 19 of block 1
cannot be built on. Lot 3 was created to serve as the detention area for: this development and lots 4 through 19 do
not have access because they are to serve as a green belt buffer to the R-1 lots located in Woodcreek Section 5.
P & Z Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 2 of 4
``~
Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer stated that a Presubmission Conference was held on February 5, 1997 and
several comments were addressed at that meeting. The applicant is also requesting a variance to the Subdivision
Regulation requirement regarding sidewalks. The Subdivision Regulations require sidewalks to be located on
both sides of a street when there is sixty feet or more of right-of--way. Since this is an office/research development
that would not create a high volume of pedestrian traffic, staff would support a partial variance to this
requirement and recommend a sidewalk on one side only. This sidewalk would eventually tie into Sebesta Road
where sidewalks currently exist. The sidewalks. in this development would allow for safe access to Sandstone
Park. This property was recently rezoned to the R&D district, which contains buffering and aesthetic
requirements to provide compatibility with the adjacent residential areas. The Commission approved a variance
to the Subdivision Regulation requirement that all lots have access and utilities at the August 1, 1996 meeting.
These lots provide for the above mentioned buffer. Staff recommended approval of this plat with the condition
that all Presubmission Conference comments .are addressed prior to filing the plat for record. In addition, staff
would recommend a variance to the Subdivision Regulation and require only one sidewalk to be constructed.
Commissioner Gribou moved to approve .the final plat of the Technology Business Park with staff
recommendations. Commissioner Massey seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Other business.
The following is a transcript of the other business session of the meeting:
Commissioner Massey: "I've got some comments to make and the source of some of them may be in the fact that
I've only been a Commissioner for eight months now; but I've got to publicly express a frustration I have. I think
that maybe some of the other Commissioners may also have similar feelings, and while its .not necessarily a
problem; I'd like to bring something out that has been bothering,me here. lately. I think the frustration is based on
the lack of a flow of information to the P&Z. I see we're talking about a rezoning today about this proposed hotel
and. I see an article in the paper before we even know... its coming .before us. Also, the discussion about the hotel on
the mudlot, the first time I heard about it was on the television news. I'm wondering is there not a better way to
use the Planning & Zoning Commission in terms of recommendations to the Council in an active way, rather than
finding out about such actions second hand. I recognize at the final decision and responsibility on such issues
rest with the Council, but it would seem that through our input and interest in such planning issues, we could help
the Council make better decisions. I'm convinced that. everyone of the people that I've worked with on the P&Z
are extremely interested in the well being of our city: They wouldn't be spending their time away from their
families, coming up here, attempting to make a contribution if they didn't care. I think 'that the City Council
should take' advantage of the energy and focus of our membership... By at least keeping us informed of potential
plans and issues. we could help facilitate better decisions on planning issues that affect the city's. growth and
development. I've got to believe that the heat that the Council and the City took from .the citizens on the
Northgate hotel proposal, could have been softened, if not totally averted by asking the P&Z and other citizen
committees' for a recommendation. There are many City planning items that I have become aware of second and
third hand that I'm actually sometimes embarrassed to have to admit I'm a P&Z Commissioner and not be aware
of such plans. We should know about.. these sorts of plans to help make our "P&Z .recommendations. be more
appropriate, consistent and of ..,value to the Council. As Planning Commissioners we should be the pipeline' to and
from our neighbors and the Council on such .matters':. So for ..what it's worth, I would like to express this
frustration. Maybe it's something that in time, I'll become callous to. I hope not. The. reason I wanted to be on
this Commission was because I care about my neighbors and the future of this city.. I'm a little fiustrated by the
fact that we're not being utilized in the way that we I feel that we should. For the record, I wanted to make these
comments and I appreciate the opportunity and the Commission's time to hear them through."
P & Z Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 3 of 4