Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/16/1981 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting • April 16, 1981 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Maher; Commissioners Livingston, Behling, Gardner Watson, Hazen, Sears; City Council Liaison Boughton. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning, Mayo; City Engineer, Ash; Asst Director of Planning, Callaway; Planning Ass't., Longley; Planning Technician, Keigley. AGENDA ITEM N0. 1 - Approval of minutes of meeting of April 2 1981. Commissioner Gardner moved for approval of the minutes; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Behling and the minutes were unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2 - Hear visitorG_ No one spoke. At this time Mr. Mayo requested permission to bring the Board up to date on depart- mental changes. He explained that during the past month staff changes had been worked out with the • City Council and resulted in the creation of a long range Planning Division within the Planning Department; and a Zoning Department, which is to be headed by Mr. Jim Callaway has also been structured into the Planning Department. Mr. Callaway is now the Assistant Director of Planning and will be handling all zoning cases, conditional use permits and related matters. Mrs. Joan Keigley has been added to the department as Planning Technician. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3 - A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 43,264 square foot tract located on the east side of Meadowland Street approximatel 1,000 feet north of University Drive from General Commercial District C-1 to Apartment District R-5. The application is in the name of Michael Davis. Mr. Callaway stated that this area is indicated in the Comprehensive Plan as being medium density residential and commercial in character, and this application appears to meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. He called specific attention to the portion of the tract which is a 40 ft. wide accessway to Texas Avenue and is included in the request. Half of the accessway is a 20 ft. wide easement. This access easement was reflected on the site plan of the parking lot for the Ramada Inn, which was reviewed by this board a couple of weeks ago. Neither the Ramada Inn developer nor this developer have problems with this easement and each will be able to utilize it. It will not adversely effect the access easement if the commission chooses to recom- mend that it be included in the zoning request; also, there should not be an adverse effect should the commission omit the easement from the rezoning request. Since the panhandle portion of this site includes a 20 ft. easement, it possibly will never be a buildable site. • Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission April 16, 1981 7:00 p.m. Page two. • Commissioner Behling asked who would be reaponsible for the paving of the access area. Mr. Mayo reported that the Ramada Inn would pay for the portion of this access area they are using. This access is on their approved parking plan and they need it in order to make their parking plan work. Chairman Maher opened the public hearing. Mrs. Hoschler, agent for the property, stated that she was available to answer any questions that might be presented. No one else spoke and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hazen asked if parking was to be allowed on Meadowland and stated that would be one of her main concerns because of limitation of access by emergency vehicles. Mr. Mayo stated that parking would be allowed on Meadowland, and this would be no different than many other areas presently existing in the city. He reminded the commission that he had stated before that sometime in the future the City Council might have to pass "no :parking ordinances" for better control in certain areas. Commissioner Behling moved for approval of the application as presented and second was given by Commissioner Watson. • Commissioner Hazen requested consideration of amending the motion to clarify that the access easement was .not included in the rezoning. Mrs. Hoschler stated that the developer would like to have the access easement remain at R-5. It would be to the benefit of the property. There has been a change in plan- ning, not in square footage, but in footage and they would like to leave it at R-5 if at all possible. They were also concerned about the difference in tax rates between C-1 and R-5. Mr. Mayo stated that if that small parcel of land were left at R-5 it would not be a developable parcel and could become a maintenance problem in the future. If it is left at C-1, there is the possibility that sometime in the future the pers:~n who - ownes it, or the adjacent property owner might sub-divide it, plat it as part of the adjacent property and actually be able to develop it. Commissioner Behling stated that if Commissioner Watson would agree, he would amend the motion as follows: That the application be approved as requested but specifically eliminating the access easement from the rezoning. Commissioner Watson gave second to the motion as amended and it was approved by the following vote. In favor: Commissioners Behling, Gardner, Maher, Watson, Hazen, Sears. Opposed: Commissioner Livingston. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 4 - A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 3.34 acre tract located west of and adjacent to Welsh Blvd. across from the intersection of Welsh Blvd. and Nueces Drive from Neighborhood Business District C-N to Apartment District R-4. The application is in the name of Enloe Construction, Inc. • • • Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission April 16, 1981 7:00 p.m. Page three. Mr. Callaway pointed out to the Commission that in the month of February the Com- mission considered a request one lot away from this tract for a C-1 to R-5 zoning. The Commission failed to reach a decision on this request. The reason given at that time was that this area is designated to be low density and commercial on the Comp- rehensive Plan. Immediately after the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, there was a major study by this Commission and the City Council which resulted in the present zoning and that zoning is the result of either rezoning or leaving existing zoning in place. At that time the Commission also studied a need to leave a commer- cial area for this entire neighborhood for additional development. He said he believed these reasons to still be valid. Commissioner Watson asked if under the C-N zoning, did the Commission also approve and designate the specific use of the property? Mr. Callaway answered affirmatively. Commissioner Maher asked if the first time this came before this Commission it was a residential request. Mr. Callaway stated that it was. The property was a lot in the Whitley Subdivision. It was Lot 3 of the Whitley Subdivision which appears to be just one lot over. Chairman Maher stated that the location was between these two C-N's. Mr. Callaway stated that this area is zoned C-1; some of the development in the area is C-N by nature, however. The Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Carroll Enloe, President of Enloe Construction, Inc., and developer of the site in question stated that they believe there is sufficient C-1 zoning on adjacent properties in this area. He stated they feel their project will enhance the co- hesiveness of the school area by going with commercial/neighborhood zoning because it abutts the school property and it is his understanding that two permitted uses of C-N zoning would allow the sale of alcohol. Other uses allowed are office facilities, and there is not a demand for that type of construction in that area at this time. He stated his belief that their development could act as a buffer zone in the area between commercial development and the school tract and on that basis he requested consideration of rezoning this tract to R-4. Commissioner Watson asked if consideration would be given to the occupants of Mr. Enloe's development. He had stated as part of his point that there would be a buffer between the commercial and the school. There is a school barn located there and he wondered what consideration would be given to the people who would occupy the development. Mr. Enloe stated that there is a natural barrier, a 12 ft. ditch, and it is not going to be appealing in any event, but with careful planning and the use of drapes occupants could be shielded to some extent from this view. Mr. Jerry Bishop introduced himself to the Commission as the engineer who had been retained by Mr. Enloe to help him research and plan the project and stated there was some information he would like to share. His understanding was that the staff had given a negative recommendation to the Com- mission for rezoning based on a 3 to 3 tie vote on a piece of property that is adjacent to this property. He reminded the Commission that the developers would expect them Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission April 16, 1981 7:00 p.m. Page four. to judge this property on its own merits regardless of anything that might happen adjacent to it. He stated he was unaware of any details of why a 14 acre tract of commercial was needed in this area in lieu of an 11 acre tract. What we are trying to show this Commission tonight is that the R-4 zoning in this area is more compatible to the school use and the residential traffic on Welsh Street and the tract could be designed in such a manner that it would shield the students and keep them away from any problems that might arise. We are asking you to consider residential zoning on this tract of land. Commissioner Watson stated that his greatest concern was still what type of business would be allowed in C-N zoning. Mr. Mayo reaffirmed that the Commission controls the kind, type and nature of any business development in C-N zoning, and that is the specific purpose of C-N. Commissioner Hazen asked if the school had been notified and if staff had received any input from them. Mr. Callaway stated they had been notified, and there had not been any contract from them. Commissioner Watson moved for approval of the request, second was given by Commissioner Gardner and the motion failed with the following vote. ~~or: Commissioners Behling, Watson and Sears. • Opposed: Commissioners Hazen, Livingston and Maher. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5 - Consideration of a preliminar plat - The Pinto Addition to be located on the 3.34 acre tract described in Item No. 4. Mr. Mayo stated that staff had no problems with the plat other than the City Engineer would like to meet with the Project Engineers to determine what, if any, drainage problems there might be. Mr. Mayo stated that the Commission might want to table action at this .time to wait to see what the City Council does as far as rezoning. Commissioner Livingston moved for approval of the Preliminary Plat; second was given by Commissioner Watson and the motion was approved by the following vote. In Favor: Commissioners Livingston, Behling, Watson, Hazen and Sears. Opposed: Commissioners Gardner and Maher. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 6 - A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for the construction and operation of an apartment/hotel to be built as an addition to the Ramada Inn located at 410 South Texas Avenue. The application is in the name of Mr. Joe A. Ferreri. Mr. Mayo stated that the conditional use permit is requested because of its use as an addition to the present use, which is an apartment/hotel and which is by conditional use permit in a C-1 zone. The staff had reviewed the site plan for it and doe; feel there is need for long discussion since they were comfortable with the si plan as presented. The Public Hearing was opened. Minutes Page five. Planning and Zoning Commission April 16, 1981 7:00 p.m. • No one spoke. The Public Hearing was closed. Upon motion by Commissioner Sears; second by Commissioner Watson the request for con- ditional use permit was unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7 - (This item was dropped from the agenda.) AGENDA ITEM N0. 8 - Consideration of a preliminary plat - University Park Phase 2. Mr. Mayo stated that University Park was a project the Commission had looked at several times. We have come to an agreement with the developer that because of the number of units the streets of Winter Park and Summer Court will need to be 60 ft. in width. It appears that the nationally accepted figure of 500 dwelling units and the traffic load therefrom on streets is the accepted figure before it ceases to be a collector. The estimated number of possible dwelling units in this project is 540, or perhaps even less than that. Staff would like to recommend that Spring Loop be made into a 70ft. wide street and the developer goes along with that recommendation. Since this is our recommendation, and since the developer does not believe they will reach the number of 540 dwelling units, the city will most probably be responsible for the cost of the excess. Commissioner Gardner asked if the traffic flow at Tarrow at Autumn Circle had been • worked out. Mr. Mayo stated that the traffic enginner had made an on-site inspection and felt that the flow, as indicated on the plat, was the most efficient method of traffic handling in that area. Commissioner Gardner then asked about the portion on the plat designated as a park. Mr. Mayo reported that the Parks and Recreation Department had recommended to the City Council that this area be developed into a park. Commissioner Hazen moved that approval be given to the Preliminary Plat and to include the 70ft. RWO; city participation in the cost of sidewalks on the north side and that Winter Park open into the park; she asked should anything else be added. Commissioner Behling stated that he would like the verbage "reserved for future subdivisions" to apply to all blocks that do not contain designated lots at this time. The motion as presented by Commissiooers Hazen and Gardner was given second by Com= missioner Watson and was approved by the following vote. In Favor: Commissioners Livingston, Behling, Maher, Watson, Hazen and Sears. Opposed: Commissioner Gardner. Conversational note: Commissioners Livingston, Maher and Hazen specifically stated it • was not their intent to give approval to the development of the park area with this vote. AGENDA ITEM N0. 9- Consideration of a final pla t, Resubdivision of Lots 10, 11 & 12; Chimney Hill Addition. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission April 16, 1981 7:00 p.m. Page six. • Mr. Mayo explained that this resubdivision simply changed 3 single family lots into 2, larger single family lots and that staff recommended approval. Commissioner Sears moved for approval of the final plat as presented; second was given by Commissioner Watson and the motion was unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 10 - Other Business Chairman Maher called for Committee Reports. Commissioner Hazen stated she had nothing to report at this time on C-1; C-3 zoning. Commissioner Livingston stated that Mr. Lowell Denton, City Attorney, had prepared a report for the Commission regarding downgrading in Commercial Zoning. Mr. Denton presented the legal opinion, in writing, to the Commission for review. After a question and answer session Mr. Denton was requested by the Commission to proceed with Ordinance 850 and to "grandfather" all existing high density use. Chairman Maher asked for additional business. At this time, Commissioner Sears stated this would be his last meeting and expressed his gratitude to fellow Commission members for their dedication and support. AGENDA ITEM N0. 11 - Adjournment • There being no further business to come before the body, upon motion by Commissioner Watson; second by Commissioner Hazen, the meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: Chairman ATTEST: Secretary •