Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/1978 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission• • MINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting November 1, 1978 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Chairman Stover; Commissioners Jones, Mathewson, Sweeney, Burke, Etter, Watson; Council Liaison Hazen; City~Rlanner Mayo; Community Development Planner Callaway; Planning Assistant Longley. Members Absent: None. Agenda Item No. 1 - Approval of minutes, meeting of October 19, 1978. Commissioner Burke moved that the minutes 6e approved. The motion was seconded 6y Commissioner Etter and approved with Commissioner Mathewson abstaining. Agenda Item Nv. 2 - Hear visitors. No one spoke. Agenda Item No. 3 - A pu6li:c hearing on the qu mate1y 5 acres located on the northeast corner and We116orn Road from Single family Resi'denti. District R-5. The application is in the name San Antonio, Texas. n of rezoning a tract of approxi- he %ntersection of Holleman Drive strict R-1 to Apartment Building . Eddie Chew. 7534 Piper's Lane. Mr. Mayo noted the. location of the tract, the existing zoning and surrounding land uses. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Rpmero Mena, project architect, presented a proposal site plan and elevations of the project. He stated that Mr. Chew was applying to 6ui1d the apartments as a Section 8, rent subsidy project. He explained that the project density was 24.3 units per acre on 2.5 acres. Commissioner Burke suggested that the. play area provided was too small and that the proximity of the western parking lot to We116orn Road would encourage children to play in the highway, Mr. Chew noted that he had given 75 feet off his property along Holleman Drive for the realignment and reconstruction of the. street and that this had left him with too small a site to provide. a larger play area. Chairman Stover stated that his 6asi:c concern was that the density was too high. Commissioner Jones stated that he felt the location was good for the proposed project and that the site plan would have to 6e submitted for approval. The public hearing was closed. MINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting November 1, 1878 -- 7:OQ P.M, 2 Commissioner Mathewson asked how the property was shown on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Mayo advised that the Plan showed the property as low density residential. Commissioner Etter pointed out that there was no way to insure that a rent subsidized project would 6e built. Chairman Stover suggested that a density of about 16 units per acre would be more appropriate. He suggested that the property 6e rezoned R-4. Commissioner Mathewson moved that the Commission recommend that the property be re- zoned to R-4. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Burke and approved with Commissioner Sweeney voting against. Agenda Item No. 4 - Consideration of a preliminary plat--Rolling Ridge, located in the Extraterritor%a1 Jurisdictonbetween Gand~Road and North Graham Road. Mr. Mayo noted the location of the proposed project. He explained the proposed uses and that the project would 6e served 6y a sanitary sewer "package" plant. Mr. Larry Wells, project engineer, stated that Mr. Jones would extend an 8-inch water line, at his cost, approximately two miles to serve the project. Mr. Jerry Bishop noted that the effluent from the package treatment plant would exceed the standards of the City and that the facility had been approved 6y the State. Commissioner Mathewson stated that the development would have no fire protection. He also suggested that approval of this add%ti'on would start a trend toward higher den- sity development in the ETJ. Councilman Hazen pointed out that the City provided fire protection to residential developments in the ETJ. Chairman Stover stated that he felt it was a mistake to agree to sell water to ETJ additions as this was one of the few controls the City had over such developments. Commissioner Mathewson pointed out that encouraging development in this area by sale of water went against the Comprehensive P1 an revisions. He also noted that the entire development would be served 6y substandard roads. Mr. Jones advised that the County planned to improve Gandy and Graham Roads. Commi:ssi:oner Burke. moved that the plat 6e tabled until a joint meeting between the Commission and Council could 6e held. The motion was seconded 6y Commissioner Mathewson. Mr. Jones stated that he had only brought the plan for comments. Commissioner Matb.ewson stated that he felt the Council was pressuring the Commission %nto approving the addition by agreeing to sell Mr. Jones water. The motion to table was unanimously approved. MINUTES Planning November and Zoning Commission Meeting 1, 1978 -- 7:.00 P.M. 3 It was decided that the question of extension of utilities to ETJ developments should be pl-aced on an upcoming Council agenda and discussed more fully. Agenda Item No. 5 - Other business. Mr. W. E. Crenshaw presented a proposed development for a 3.86 acre tract located on the east side of Welsh Avenue irr the "Holik" tract. He noted that the proposed de- velopment would be of small single family houses. He stated that the plan, as he had shown, would exceed the allowable density of 6 units per acre and asked that he be allowed to develop the tract as a-PUD. Mr. Mayo stated that the proposed plan did not qualify as a PUD. He noted that there was no reason to develop the property at greater than 6 units per acre. He also pointed out that no commonly owned property was provided. Mr. Crenshaw stated that it would not be economically feasible to develop the tract at 6 units per acre. Commissioner Mathewson noted that the only zone which would allow single family homes at 7.9 units per acre was the PUD zone. He also pointed out that the plan had no recreation area or common property. Commissioner Watson stated that the project was aimed at young people who would not be interested in common property ownership or a homeowners association. Chairman Stover advised that, if done as a PUD, the development would have to have a homeowners association. Commissioner Jones- suggested that Mr. Crenshaw might consider a common wall, patio home concept. Mr. Crenshaw stated that he didn't th%nk he could market that concept. Commissioner Watson stated that he was in favor of the project because that type of housing was needed and that this was a good location for it. Mr. Mayo pointed out that the houses: would become rental units and would not be main- ta fined on a day-to-day basis. He advised that the purpose of the common ground and homeowners association was to insure maintenance of the units and the grounds. Chairman Stover noted that the proposed project was only a single family development which. was in excess- of the allowable densiay and was- in no way a PUD. Commissioner Mathewson moved that the Commission recommend that the applicant not pur- sue the plan as presented because (1~ it exceeded-the allowable single family density, and (2) i't does not meet the requirements of a PUD. The motion was seconded by Comm %ssioner Burke. and approved with Commissioner Watson voting against. Commissi;one.r Mathewson advised. the Commission that on the December 7 meeting, his Urban Geology class would make a presentation of their flood plain management study. He assured the Commission that the presentation would take nor more than 15 minutes. Commi:s,si:oner that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jones and unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.