Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/19/1981 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting • March 19, 1981 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESEPIT: Chairman Maher; Commissioners Hazen, Watson, Gardner, Behling; City Council Liaison Kelly MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Livingston, Sears STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, City Engineer Ash, Fire Marshal Davis, Zoning Official Callaway, Community Development Coordinator Kee, Planning Assistant Longley AGENDA ITEM N0. 1 -- Approval of minutes - meeting of March 5, 1981. Commissioner Watson moved that the minutes be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gardner and unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2 -- Hear visitors. Mr. Edsel Jones asked that his proposed rezoning of a part of the Woodway Village Addition from R-3 to R-5 be taken from the table. The rezoning had been tabled at the March 5, 1981 meeting. Mr. Mayo advised the Commission that the City Attorney had said that the item could be reconsidered, even though it did not appear on the agenda. However, if any protest • to the Commission's action was raised, the action could be voided in court. He noted that no one had spoken in opposition at the public hearing. Mr. Jones told the Commission that his development would be only 17 dwelling units per acre, only one unit above R-4 density and that he would be willing to have the Com- mission specify this density limit. Commissioner Behling moved that the rezoning be removed from the table. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Watson and approved with Commissioner Gardner voting against and Chairman Maher abstaining. Chairman Maher ruled that the item would be considered prior to Other Business. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3 -- A public hearing on the question of rezoning Lots 6-12 of the Meadowland Addition from Duplex District R-2 to General Commercial District C 1 The application is in the name of Mr. Joe Ferreri. Mr. Mayo advised that the rezoning was needed so that the land could be used as add- itional required parking for the proposed expansion of the Ramada Inn. He recommended that the item be tabled, however, due to questions that had come up in the P.R.C. meeting which needed to be considered by the City staff and the project architect. He explained that the architect had been unavailable at the P.R.C. meeting and was also unable to attend the present meeting. He said that the 7 lots in question should not be rezoned for commercial use until the site plan had been finalized. The public hearing was opened. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 1981 7:00 P.M. Page 2 • Ms. Betty Young, Manager of Ramada Inn, spoke and asked that the Commission table action on both the rezoning and the site plan so that the problems found in the P.R.C. review by the City Planner and the Fire Marshall could be discussed with the project architect. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Behling moved that the item be tabled. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Watson and approved with Chairman Maher voting against. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4 -- Consideration of a parking lot Ulan-for an addition to the Ramada Inn. Mr. Mayo explained the additional parking to be provided. He said that end islands would be needed in the lot north of the Sands Motel and that fire access would need to be improved in the area of the proposed tower addition. He suggested that the staff meet with the project architect to solve these problems and that the item be tabled. Commissioner Gardner asked if the parking requirements were being based on the existing Ramada development or only the proposed addition. Mr. Mayo said that the requirements were basically being based on the addition. • Commissioner Gardner asked if a nonconforming use did not have to be brought up to standard if it were to be enlarged. Mr. Mayo said that the existing parking area was less than 100 spaces short of the requirement if the project were built under the present standard and that the pro- posed meeting rooms would be used by many persons staying at the motel. He pointed out that the parking requirement was based on the assumption that the meeting rooms would be used only by persons off site. Mr. Mayo also said that the main area of nonconformity at the existing motel was a violation of the rear setback along Meadowland Street. Commissioner Gardner asked that an accounting of the existing parking situation at the Ramada Inn be made when the site plan was reconsidered. Commissioner Watson moved that the site plan be tabled. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Behling and approved with Chairman Maher voting against. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5 -- A public hearing on the question of rezoning two tracts on Southwest Parkway East from R-1 to R-3 and R-4. The application being in the name of the Cruse Corporation. Mr. Mayo explained that, since a request on this tract had been denied by the Com- mission and withdrawn by the applicant, the Commission would have to grant the ap- • plicant permission to have a revised request considered within the 180 day waiting period required by the Zoning Ordinance. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 1981 7:00 P.M. Page 3 • Commissioner Watson moved that the applicant be grated permission to have a revised application for rezoning considered at this time. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Behling and approved with Commissioner Gardner voting against. Mr. Mayo explained the revised request which showed a strip of R-3 zoning along the south side of the property about 250 feet deep with the remaining 27 acres front- ing Southwest Parkway zoned R-4. He said that he had talked to some of the resi- dents of Auburn Court and that they would like to see the entire tract zoned R-3. He said that the staff would agree to this concept. He also added that it should be made clear that higher density zoning on this tract should not serve as the catalyst for additional higher density zoning in the rest of this area. Commissioner Gardner asked on what grounds the Commission could turn down additional rezoning requests if the current one were to be granted. Mr. Mayo suggested that there might not be any need for additional multifamily zoning in the area if this request were approved. Commissioner Watson said that he thought the residents of Auburn Court had a legit- amate fear that they could become surrounded by multifamily housing. He suggested that any action taken by the Commission on this tract include a strong statement that this would .not be allowed to happen. • The public hearing was opened. Mr. Cruse presented a proposed development plan. He pointed out that the overall density of the project would be 11.4 units/acre. He pointed out that the plan in- cluded a church tract and that the 250 foot strip of R-3 zoning would serve as a buffer to the single family property on Krenek Lane. He said that the proposed Plan 2000 showed some aprtment zoning in this area. Commissioner Gardner asked what type of buffer was to be provided for the land uses on the north side of Southwest Parkway. Mr. Cruse suggested that this land might be developed in stages from R-1 density up to R-4 density. Commissioner Gardner said that it was not a good idea to put high density develop- ment in the middle of a neighborhood. He said that he thought this area still had potential to develop as a neighborhood. Mr. Cliff Young, Auburn Court, asked what type of zoning would be proposed for the intersection of Dartmouth and Southwest Parkway. He suggested that commercial zoning would be recommended. Mr. Mayo said that commercial would not be recommended at this location because of the proximity of large commercial tracts at the intersection of Southwest Parkway and Texas Avenue. • Commissioner Watson suggested that there would not be adequate traffic at that inter- section to support commercial development. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 1981 7:00 P.M. Page 4 Mr. Miller said that he was against the proposed zoning due to the possibility that • the rezoning would cause additional multifamily zoning in the area. Mr. Jerry Miller, 2213 Auburn Court, spoke in opposition to the request. He said that the residents would prefer R-3, Townhouse, zoning on the entire tract because townhouses were far more likely to be owner-occupied than apartments are duplexes. He also said that Mr. Cruse had been unwilling to commit himself to the 11.4 units per acre figure. He said that the residents accepted the need for multifamily housing somewhere in the area, but not this much, and not here. He said that, with intrest rates going. down, the area could be developed as single family. Mr. Elmer Thompson, ,Auburn Court, also spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Cruse said that he had told the residents that half of the R-4 area would be developed as condominium units. He also said that, if the Commission wished, the church tract could be left zoned R-1 because a church could still be placed in this zone. Chairman Maher said that his main objection was the amount of property requested for R-4 zoning. He asked Mr. Cruse if he could accept R-3 zoning on the entire tract. Mr. Cruse said that he could not accept R-3 zoning on the entire tract. The public hearing was closed. • Commissioner Behling asked what the Commission's opinion would be of limiting the R-4 zoning to the eastern end of the tract and placing the R-3 zoning on the west end nearest the existing development in the Brentwood Addition. Chairman Maher said that this would be more acceptable to him. Mr. Cruse said that he would have no problems with this as long as he could build condominium units in the R-3 zone. Mr. Mayo advised that the zoning ordinance did not specify which zones would allow condominium development so there would be no problem with Mr. Cruse doing this. Chairman Maher suggested that the request should be revised as discussed and returned to the Commission. Commissioner Hazen said that she would be more favorable to the layout discussed by Commissioner Behling. Commissioner Behling moved that both tracts be tabled. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Behling and approved with Chairman Maher and Commissioner Gardner voting against. Chairman Maher pointed out that this action did not bind the Commission to approval of any rezoning request on the property. • Commissioner Watson was excused from the meeting. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 1981 7:00 P.M. Page 5 • AGENDA ITEM N0. 6 -- Consideration of a final plat - Resubdivision of Lots 8 & 9 Block D; College Heights Addition. Mr. Mayo said that the property was zoned R-2 and platted as two lots. He explained that the owner wished to resubdivide the lots into three lots and build patio homes under the restrictions of District R-lA. Commissioner Hazen moved that the plat be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gardner and approved with Commissioner Watson absent. AGENDA ITEM N0.7 -- Consideration of a final plat - K.F.O. Addition Phase 3. Mr. Mayo advised that the final plat had been revised as recommended by the Com- mission and that the lots shown were under the 16 units/acre as required. Commissioner Hazen moved that the plat be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Behling and approved with Commissioner Gardner voting against and Commissioner Watson absent. AGENDA .ITEM N0. 8 -- Consideration of a final plat - the Boardwalk. Mr. Mayo said that the plat had been revised to show only one lot at the inter- . section of Texas Avenue and Highway 30 as recommended by the Commission. He added that the final plat was otherwise identical to the preliminary. Chairman Maher asked Mr. Mayo to explain the curb cut agreement on Highway 30. Mr. Mayo explained that two curb cuts would be granted to serve the private drive connecting all of the lots except Lot 1. Commissioner Gardner asked how this would be assured. Mr. Mayo said that there were two ways to insure that only two cuts would be allowed: 1. The City Engineer has the authority to grant curb cuts and their location. 2. All site plans for development of the tract would have to come before the Commission for parking plan approval. Commissioner Hazen suggested that a note should be placed on the plat to make potential purchasers of the lots aware that they might not get a curb cut to Highway 30. Mr. Mayo said that he felt the best course of action would be to leave the final loc- ation of the curb cuts up to the City Engineer as required by ordinance. He said that this would allow more flexibilty of design than to specify locations at this time. Commissioner Gardner said that he felt this plat was the opposite of what the Com- mission had been working for in commercial developments. That is, that commercial property should be developed in large tracts rather than in small lots as shown. • Commissioner Behling said that the plat represented the development of a large tract, but still allowed for individual ownership of the land with controlled development MINUTES Page 6 Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 1981 ' 7:00 P.M. and access. • Commissioner Gardner said that the 25 foot wide lots were small parcels of land, and that their location on a high traffic street might make them unsuitable for indi- vidual ownership and development. Commissioner Behling asked if there were any locations where individual ownership of commercial property would be suitable. Commissioner Gardner said that, if individual ownership of small commercial tracts was needed, there might be some locations where it would be suitable, but that the tract under consideration was not one of them. Commissioner Behling said that he felt commercial developments of this type were needed, but he would agree that a note should be placed on the plat to alert buyers of the curb cut limitations. Commissioner Hazen asked City Engineer Ash what type of note would be suitable. Mr. Ash explained that the City Attornery had told the staff that such notes on the face of a plat had no binding effect unless the note spoke to a public right-of-way or other public property. He said, however that it would be wise to place a note on the plat stating-that the City Engineer was given the authority, under Ordinance No. 608 to grant curb cut locations. Mr. Richard Smith, developer, said that he thought that a note saying that all • curb cuts on the property would have to be approved by the City Engineer would be suitable and that he would be glad to place such a note on the plat. Commissioner Hazen moved that the plat be approved with the addition of a note stating that all curb cut locations would be approved by the City Engineer under the authority granted by Ordinance No. 608. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Behling and approved with Commissioner Gardner voting against and Commissioner Watson absent. AGENDA ITEM N0..9 -- Consideration of a final plat - Lincoln Place. Mr. Mayo explained that some of the lots had been enlarged since the preliminary plat was approved and that the first row of lots in the R-4 area would be limited to only 3 units per lot in order to bring the entire R-4 area under 16 units per acre. He added that this would be placed on the plat as a stipulation. Commissioner Gardner moved that the plat be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Behling and approved with Commissioner Watson absent. AGENDA ITEM N0. 10 -- Consideration of granting a site plan permit for a townhouse/ condominium project located on Block 50, Southwood Valley Section 22A. The appli- cation is from Candle Corp. • Mr. Mayo pointed out that the changes requested by the P.R.C. had been made and recommended approval of the plan. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 1981 7:00 P.M. Page 7 Commissioner Behling moved that the permit be granted under the conditions imposed • by the P.R.C. which were: 1. The drive dimension should be a minimum of 23 feet. 2. Each lot should have eight (8) parking spaces. 3. The sidewalks required on San Pedro and Navarro Drives should be on Block 50 so that it will connect all the individual walks from each unit. Commissioner Behling's motion was seconded by Commissioner Hazen and approved with Commissioner Watson absent. AGENDA ITEM N0. 11 -- Reconsideration of a request to rezone a 4.2 acre portion of Woodway Village Phase One from Townhouse District R-3 to Apartment District R-5. The application was in the name of Arapaho, Ltd. Chairman Maher pointed out that the public hearing on this item had been held and closed at the March 5, 1981 meeting of the Commission. Mr. Mayo explained that Mr. Jones had been contacted by a local builder who whished to replat the property as shown on the plat provided and build fourplexes with rear access and to build duplexes on the remainder of the land. He said that it would be of benifit to the city to see some .development start to take place in this area. He pointed out that Holleman Drive had been built in this subdivision and would soon begin to deteriorate unless some traffic was placed on it. He recommended approval of the rezoning request because he felt that this builder's plans were more certain • than those in the past. Commissioner Gardner asked how many more dwelling units would be built under the R-5 proposal than under the existing R-3 zoning. Mr. Mayo explained that 14 units would be built under the R-3 zoning while this figure would increase to 17 if the R-5 zoning was granted. Commissioner Behling moved that the Commission recommend approval of the request. This motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Gardner said that he still did not think this was a suitable location for multifamily development due to the lack of access to it. He said that while he was opposed to any higher density development on the tract, he was certainly opposed to any proposed increase in density. Commissioner Hazen said that she would be willing to vote for R-4 zoning on the land but not R-5. Mr. Edsel Jones pointed out that the proposed development was only one unit above the allowed maximum for the R-4 zone. He explained that the property had been zoned R-3 at the whim of a potential developer who then decided not to build his project due to financing problems. Mr. Mayo pointed out that the City Council had recently rezoned a tract to R-5 with • the stipulation that ft not be developed to more than 20 units per acre. He sug- gested that this might be done in this case. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 1981 7:00 P.M. Page 8 • Commissioner Hazen moved that the Commission recommend that the property be rezoned to District R-4. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Behling and approved with Commissioner Gardner voting against and Commissioner Watson absent. AGENDA ITEM N0. 12 -- Other business. Commissioner Gardner gave the Commission a copy of his thoughts on the proposed changes in the M-1 district. He asked that they review them and make comments. Mr. Mayo said that he had been studying the Sherman, Texas industrial development ordinances and found that they applied only to development in industrial parks but that some of the controls could also be applied to individual sites. Commissioner Gardner suggested that some ordinances from non-oil related areas should be reviewed. Chairman Maher said that his main problem was the role of the City Council and the Commission in the process of reviewing and permitting idustrial projects. He sug- gested that extensive study should be given to who was to make the judgements in- volved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 13 -- Adiourn. Commissioner Behling moved that the meeting be adjourned. • The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hazen and approved with Commissioner Watson absent. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M. Attest Secretary APPROVED Chairman •