Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/01/1982 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission MINUTES City of College Station, Texas Planning and Zoning Commission 7:00 P.M. July 1, 1982 MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman Kelly, Commissioners Bailey, Hall, Hill, Miller, Fleming and Council Liaison Jones MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Behling STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Director of Capital Improvements Ash, Building Official Perry, Traffic Engineer Black, Plan- ning Assistant Longley, Zoning Official Kee, City Attorney Denton and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. l: Approval of Minutes meeting of June 17, 1982. Commissioner Hall pointed out that Commissioner Hill had made the motion referred to on the top of page 5; Commissioner Miller indicated that he had cast the negative vote referred to under Agenda Item #8 rather than Mr. Hall. With the above changes, Mr. Bailey made a motion to approve the minutes; Mr. Hall seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Hall also had questions concerning Agenda Item #1 concerning "sight to the right of the curb cut on University Drive", but no better way of wording the statement was arrived at. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear Visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM NO 3: Land Use Recommendation Report on Area bounded by East Bypass to the East, Texas Avenue to the West and Krenek Tap to the North. Mr. Mayo presented the report which staff and Commissioners Fleming, Bailey & Miller had researched. He presented a land use map that had been drawn as a result of that study, and had explained the map and the reasons various uses were being recommended. On the map the major streets were shown, including extensions of Dartmouth, Morgan's Lane and the originally proposed private access easement on the land bordered by Mile Drive, East Bypass Feeder Road and Texas Avenue (with curb cut off Texas Avenue). He explained that some existing zoning had been used, along with the City's desire to zone large tracts of land at major intersections for commercial use, with medium densi- ty residential and administrative-professional zoning used as a buffer between commer- cial zones and single family residential zoning. He further explained in areas where a portion of the land would fall into the Flood Plain, the committee had determined that medium density residential zoning would be a good way to develop land which was difficult to develop. He reported that this land use map is compatible with existing land use maps and proposed land use maps which have existed prior to this report. Mr. Miller asked if the City should now initiate rezoning in this area. Mayo said that it would be a possibility, but that staff would not recommend that action at this time, • but would rather wait until City Council has gone over the total land use map for the City included in the comprehensive plan. Then he would suggest a workshop combining Council, P ~ Z and staff to develop a workable land use/zoning map, using the proposed and existing land uses. P&Z - July 1, 1982 page 2 Mr. Hill requested that Mr. Mayo point out specific changes in zoning which will need • to be made to make his plan work. He did, making reference to the prepared map in each instance. More discussion followed with Mr. Hall asking if the Commission should make a motion to adopt this plan in principal. Mr. Kelly indicated that discussion only was in order tonight. After more discussion, Mr. Hall made a motion to submit this plan to the City Council for consideration in future rezoning requests. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 82-415: Consideration of a Parking Lot Plan fora Convenience Stop at the Corner of South Texas Avenue and the Feeder Road of Hwy 6 Bypass. Mr. Mayo presented this plan, indicating there is a total of 32 acres of C-1 General Commercial land in this tract. He pointed out that the P.R.C. recommended changing the drive which is shown in favor of a common drive between the A-P zoned area and the C-1 tract. Also, the P.R.C. wanted the curb cut on the Feeder Road to be as far away from Texas Avenue as possible; a reason being that this particular project could cause high traffic density, creating another dangerous intersection too close to the intersection on Texas Avenue. To accomplish the common drive which P.R.C. recommends, a Separate Instrument or a Replat of the tract showing the drive should be submitted. Also, the P.R.C. had a problem with the 50 ft. sign which is indicated on the plan. This sign complies with the Ordinance, but it would not be compatible with the nearby residential area. We could only recommend to the developer that he reconsider putting a sign of that magnitude and that height so close to a residential area. Mr. Mayo reminded the Commission that the current zoning resulted from a particular project which had been presented, but which had since fallen through, and now due to the existing zoning on that land, we are faced with another project which staff finds • distasteful due to its proximity to the residential area. The staff's recommendation would be to deny this plan and go back to the land use recommendation and initiate rezoning the C-1 tract to A-P. Mr. Miller indicated that due to the number of problems incurred with the site plan, and the fact that the zoning on this tract is not compatible with land use recommends tions, he moved to deny this site plan; Mr. Hall seconded the motion; motion carried, with Mr. Fleming abstaining. Mr. Bailey pointed out that the Commission has a petition from the residents of Mile Drive before it in connection with the site plan; Mr. Mayo pointed out that the Com- mission actually has 2 petitions, the latest one indicating that the residents of Mile Drive recommend the entire tract in question be rezoned A-P. Mr. Bailey then made a motion that the Commission direct Staff to initiate rezoning the C-1 tract in question to A-P. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. Mr. Hill had questions concerning ingress and egress of traffic to the tract, and providing a suitable project which would be compatible with the neighborhood. He said that this project which had just been denied had been particularly distasteful, but that in his opinion some kind of commercial use could be acceptable. Mr. Bailey pointed out that with C-1 zoning, the Commission would have no control over what went on t-hat tract. Mr. Hill said that an A-P project would not guarantee less traffic. Mr. Hall indicated that traffic con- trol could be helped 6y making the common access off Texas Avenue mandatory to that tract, and that, in addition to allowing only one curb cut to the feeder road should help solve the problem. • Mr. Mayo indicated that staff's number one concern is the traffic problem and that almost any kind of retail/commercial project would generate more traffic throughout the day than offices, and furthermore, there could be more noise and odor generated by this traffic or by particular commercial projects themselves than would be caused by A-P projects. PAZ - July 1, 1982 page 3 Mr. Hall cautioned against rezoning under too hasty conditions, but that this parti- • cular area had more study than most, and if Staff and the Committee believe this is the best course to follow, then he would tend to agree that A-P would be the best possible land use for this tract. Mr. Mayo indicated that the only other alternative would be low density residential, and with that, Mr. Hill indicated that he would like to explore that possibility. Mr. Hall clarified by restating that this was not actually being rezoned tonight, but that the Commission was directing staff to put this rezoning item on .the agenda at some time in the near future. Mr. Mayo stated that the very earliest date this could be on the agenda would be August 5th. Voting was called for; motion carried. with 2 abstentions (Hill ~ Fleming). Mr. Hill reiterated that while staff was preparing-the item for the agenda, they should consider all tracts in this area and not just this one. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 82-126: A public hearing on the question of rezoning a .954 acre tract which is part of Block 4, Harvey Hillsides Subdivision from Agriculture- Open Space District A-0 to General Commercial District C-l. Application is in the name of Margaret Kathleen Jordan. Mr. Mayo explained the proposed rezoning and pointed out that City Council had just tabled a 5.66 acre rezoning request in the same area (actually adjacent to this tract) for talks between the owner and developer of the property and nearby residents to deter- mine if a compromise can be reached. He pointed out that if these 2 rezoning requests were passed, the City was actually beginning a strip commercial zoned area on Harvey Road, which conflicts with all future plans the City has been making concerning land uses. The proposed comprehensive plan indicates this area to be low density residential • and as such, could not support a relatively large strip commercial area. He further pointed out that at the time this area was annexed that the P & Z, the Staff and the City Council had made statements to the effect that one of the reasons this area was annexed was to prevent this type of strip commercial development. Mr. Hall asked Mr. Mayo if at no time would he consider varying commercial zoning at major intersections, and indicated he believed that this could serve to relieve some traffic at these intersections on major streets. Mr. Mayo pointed out that unless you planned to rezone a .954 acre tract somewhere else in town which is already zoned C-1 or C-2, to some other zoning, all you are doing is adding to the commercial zoned areas and not relieving congestion anywhere, but simply adding more. Mr. Hall asked if Mr. Mayo could see any land use of this tract of less intensity, other than R-1 or other low density residential use.- Mr. Mayo indicated that staff has studied the whole area, and that part of this land is in a Flood Plain which can- not be defined due to the City Limits following a creek; therefore, the depth of the lots in question is not as deep as it appears on the map. To develop anything more than low density residential in this area, combined with the land which is already zoned industrial would create very costly capital improvements and municipal services in an area where there is no reason for development since the projected growth of the City is to the south. The public hearing was opened and proponents of the rezoning request were invited to speak. • Weldon Jordan, spouse of the applicant came forward and handed out exhibits including a letter agreeing to the rezoning which was signed by neighbors in the area and a site plan which located the proposed project. He indicated that the proposed project to be developed on this tract would be a greenhouse in which his wife would raise orchids for wholesale and retail sales. PAZ - July 1, 1982 page 4 Mr. Hall asked if all the neighbors who signed the letter were aware of all the other possible projects which could go on land zoned C-l. Mr. Jordan said that the neigh- . bors are aware of the businesses which could go into C-1 zoning, and also that these people are opposed to any industrial use being made of. this land. He said that when each of them bought their land they were aware that a certain amount of land was set aside for future commercial use. He stated that in his opinion, strip commercial zon- ing would be better than concentrated commercial zoning, and that he was against out- of-towners such as the consultants hired to develop the proposed comprehensive plan for the growth of the City, coming in and dictating what the citizens should use their land for. At this point, Mr. Bailey pointed out that no one from out of town dictates as to our use of land, but that they suggest, and the City decides what the land will be used for. Kathy Jordan, applicant of the request then spoke, and indicated that the type of business they want to develop is not suitable in heavy commercial areas because of the space required and the fact that orchids are adversely affected by air pollution,etc. No one else spoke. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Fleming said that he felt we were doing the landowners a dis-service by not rezon- ing this land; that it is on the outskirts of College Station, and would be suitable for commercial business, as there was some traffic from commercial businesses beyond that point already. Mr. Bailey made a motion to table consideration of this request until the Commission could get a reading from the City Council concerning the request regarding the neigh- . boring 5.66 acres. He felt that until the Commission finds out how the Council is going to vote on that tract, it should not consider any action in that area. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. He felt the request should be tabled, but for a slightly dif- ferent reason, that being that he could not relate a greenhouse to all other uses in a commercial zone, and felt that staff should consider the possibility of adding a nursery/greenhouse type of operation to the list of Conditional Uses, which could be placed in any zone given certain circumstances which are enumerated in the Ordinance. Mr. Miller asked if we are permitted to define uses in C-N zones, and would this qualify, to which Mr. Mayo answered that this is a possibility. Mr. Miller indicated that he liked the nursery project, but that the project is not what is being considered, but rather if the land should be rezoned to commercial. r ~ L J Mr. Hill spoke against the motion to table this request. He pointed out that this tract is contiguous to existing commercial property and that there had been no object- tions to the proposed use. Mr. Bailey said that if we recommended something on this and the Council proposes something different, it would be a waste of time. Mr. Fleming indicated that the Commission should not be affected by what the Council decides. Mr. Miller said that he thought it would be naive to assume that the requests would stop with this request and the previous one. He also reiterated that the particular pro- posed project should not come up at this hearing; that the area should be considered and not the project. Mr. Hill said that we always consider the worst possible use in a zoned area and Mr. Bailey said this had to be taken into consideration when an area is rezoned. Mr. Kelly asked if the concern of the Commission was that the project might not go in and that something undesireable would come in at a later date, or if the concern was with the possibility of strip zoning. He said that this request could be recommended for approval with the condition that if the project in question did not develop, it would revert back to original zoning. Mr. Hall said that if this use were added to the Conditional Uses, we could go ahead and allow this nursery to go in without rezoning the property. PAZ - July 1, 1982 page 5 r~ ~J • Mr. Kelly asked for votes. Motion to table request carried, with 2 negative votes. (Hill ~ Fleming) Mr. Hall asked to make a motion at this time that Staff look into the possibility of adding nursery/greenhouse use to the list of Conditional Uses. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: 82-127: A ublic hearin on the uestion of rezonin Lot of the Richards Subdivision SE corner of Texas Avenue ~ Richards St. from Single _Family Residential District R-1 to Administrative-Professional District A-P. Appli- cation is in the name of Kevin G. Schachterle, D.C. ~~ 28 Mr. Mayo explained the request and located it on a map. He pointed out that this lot is presently zoned R-1 and that in the past, requests for rezoning this same lot to General Commercial and also A-P had been denied, and that nothing in the area has changed, therefore staff could not support this request. The public hearing was opened. Kevin Schachterle and informed the Commission that he was proposing on the site. He further indicated that there had (a shopping center closeby) and that he doubted i He further stated that he believed that A-P would nue and the residential area on Richards St. identified himself as the applicant a health care center and law offices been changes in the neighborhood f a home would ever be built there. 6e a good buffer between Texas Ave- Jack DeMuynck identified himself as a property owner in College Station, and a repre- sentative of the owner of the property in question. He says the owner is in favor of this project, and that there has been no evidence of residential development on Texas Avenue in 20 years. He said the City could collect more in tax money and the A-P would be a good buffer between busy Texas Avenue and the residences. He felt that .the land should be put to the highest and best use possible. Tim Kneipp spoke and identified himself as the architect who had designed the proposed project, and repeated that he believed that A-P would 6e a good buffer and indicated that this statement had also been made concerning other items on the previously dis- cussed agenda items. He made certain comments about Mr. Mayo to which Mr. Bailey and Mr. Kelly immediately took exception, and for which Mr. Kneipp offered an apology, saying that he did not mean his statement in any way to be derogatory. Opponents to the request were invited to speak, and Mr. Curly Green came forward and identified himself as a resident on Richards Street, and stated that he and all the neighborhood residents were opposed to this rezoning request, as they had been all past requests, and hoped that the Commission would again rule against recommending rezoning of the land. in question. He said that the lot was not big enough to handle anything other than a residence. Sam Ford of 112 Richard then spoke, and indicated there were g residents in the audience, all of whom were against the rezoning request, and for whom he and Mr. Green were spokes- men. No one else spoke. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Bailey pointed out that this area is currently a target for Community Development funds, and that it is now a unique area which has been residential for 30+ years. He reminded the Commission that in the past the position had been that we did not wish to • change the character of the neighborhood and rezoning requests had been denied. Mr. Bailey made a motion to recommend denial of this rezoning request. Mr. Hall se- conded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. P&Z - July 1, 1982 page 6 AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: A public hearing on the question of granting Conditional Use Permits for site work and expansions to existin4 Citv of College Station Facilities: • (a)Police Station at 2611 Texas Avenue; (b)Cit Warehouse at 2 13 Texas Avenue; and c City Hall at 1101 Texas Avenue. Elrey Ash presented the proposed changes to existing facilities and informed the Com- mission that these changes had been included in the 1981 Bond Program. He said that there was a proposed 2000 sq.ft. addition to the existing facility at the police de- partment, plus parking for an additional 62 vehicles and a new firing range. At the warehouse, an additional bay was proposed along with truck dock, materials and storage slabs and parking area. At City Hall, expansion would include a 2 story addition (the first step to a 4 story facility), plus a parking area for approximately 106 vehicles which would replace the current lot which has spaces for approximately 50-60 vehicles. Mr. Ash, when questioned, responded that the additional facilities at the warehouse would cover uses through 1886,-at which time the City would more than likely have to expand again. When asked about- a screening fence at the warehouse, Mr. Mayo said that if it were to become necessary, it could be done, but that it could, itself, become a problem. Mr. Hall asked if the City owns the property where the parking lot for City Hall is shown. Mr. Ash indicated that the City currently owns 1 lot and is trying to buy 4 more lots, and that all ways to expand City Hall had been explored, and that this was the most economical way to expand and to handle the necessary parking. He was asked why the warehouse proposal included no landscaping. Mr. Hill agreed that it should be included, and also thinks that screening would be necessary. • Public hearing was opened and Nancy Scott identified herself as a resident who lives on Foster behind City Hall, and wondered how it would affect her. The answer was that it would not affect her in any way. Lorelei Brown identified herself as owning property where the City parking lot is being proposed and wondered if condemnation proceedings came before the Commission, to which she was answered in the negative. She gave the history of her father owning the lot and then the fact that she had in- herited it, and the problems she had encountered when trying to develop different pro- jects on the lot. She indicated that she did not like the idea of having a warehouse in the middle of the City, to which it was pointed out that the warehouse already exists further south on Texas Avenue, and that this project was for an addition to City Hall and a parking lot. She wondered about the City being able to get a zoning change at this location when she had been unable to, and was informed that this was not a zoning change, but rather a conditional use permit, which is in accord with the current Ordinance. Gene Stevens spoke and identified himself as a construction man, and offered his opinion that a better design of the structure would be to put the parking area under the pro- posed 2 story building. Steve Seager spoke, indicating that College Station is an ugly town and reminded the Commission that it was making decisions which would affect the future of the City. • Sherman Click spoke and asked if the land was not owned by the City would facilities like the Police Department and City Warehouse be permitted in that area. He was ans- wered that warehouses would be confined to areas zoned C-2, and that city facilities fell into Conditional Uses permitted under the current Zoning Ordinance. PAZ - July 1, 1982 page 7 AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: 82-709: Consideration of granting a Conditional Use Permit for site work and expansions of existing Police Station at 2611 Texas Avenue. • Mr. Hall made a motion to grant the conditional use permit; Mr. Miller seconded; motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: 82-710: Consideration of granting a Conditional Use Permit for site work and expansions of existing City Warehouse at 2613 Texas Avenue. Mr. Hill made a motion to deny the permit, pending landscaping plans; Mr. Fleming seconded the motion. Both motion and second were withdrawn. Mr. Bailey offered an alternate motion to approve the conditional use permit but to withhold building permit until an approved landscaping plan is presented. Mr. Miller seconded this motion; motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 10: 82-711: Consideration of granting a Conditional Use Permit for site work and expansions of existing City Hall at 1101 Texas Avenue. Mr. Hill asked if this covered the expansion or the parking area. Mr. Ash answered that both were covered, and that construction on the building would probably begin in September, but the parking lot would more than likely not be in by then. When asked about the phasing of the parking lot completion, Mr. Ash replied that after acquiring the. land, the completion of the parking lot would be about halfway through the project. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Denton what the time frame for the condemnations was to which Mr. Denton replied that by using some assumption, it should be completed within 60 days. Mr. Hall asked Mr. Ash again why stacked parking had been rejected, to which Mr. Ash • replied that stacked parking would cost approximately 35% more than the plan which is being offered. Mr. Miller asked if landscaping for the addition would continue along from existing landscaping, to which Mr. Ash replied in the affirmative. Mr. Kelly asked fora motion. Mr. Bailey made a motion to approve the conditional use permit; Mr. Fleming seconded. Motion carried with Mr. Hall voting no and Mr. Hill abstaining. Mr. Hill requested Staff to present 5 reasons for not using the land to the north of the existing City Hall at the time the landscaping plans are presented to Commission. AGENDA ITEM N0. 11: 82-804: A public hearing on the question of amending the Zoning Ordinance No. 850 defining modular and mobile homes and revising District R-7 regulations to provide for modular home sites. Mr. Mayo presented the proposed amendment to the Ordinance and explained that it de- fines modular construction (as stated in State law) and gave a specific zone for modu- lar construction to be located (R-7 which includes mobile home parks), plus specified that modular construction be built under R-1 (Single Family Residential) District requirements. He indicated the need for some type of control of location of until such time the City can work out details in understanding State law concerning this relatively new type of construction. not against modular construction, but under the new State law, tually no control over any of the construction, and this would land use." nodular construction and dealing with the He stated the City is localities have vir- be "control through • City Attorney Denton interjected that he wanted to make sure the Commission understands that there are two general classifications that the Cities can be concerned with re- gulating with respect to modular construction: (1)the .type, manner, kind and safety of the construction of the units themselves, with which this ordinance does not concern P&Z - July 1, 1982 page 8 itself, or (2)the location of these types of units in a zone for their use. The Texas Supreme Court has very recently reversed a Civil appeals decision in upholding the • location of mobile homes by virtue of zoning ordinances. Article 15.221E applies with equal force to both types of construction (mobile homes and modular construction). He cautioned the Commission about attempting to adopt the Ordinance because of the fact that we are prevented from regulating the other aspects, and the Commission needs to make a decision whether or not it's appropriate to regul-ate them as to location aside from the fact that whether or not they are safe, etc., which appears to be pre- empted by law. Mr. Miller asked whether or not it would be possible to stack modular construction in the future if this amendment were passed, to which Mr. Mayo replied that it could be possible in an R-7 zone, and cited the case of a 2 story single family residence which would have to be built under R-1 restrictions. Public hearing was opened. Gene Stevens came forward to ask questions concerning clarification of where modular homes could be built if this ordinance amendment was passed. Mr. Mayo said that they would have to be located in a Mobile Home Park zone, not necessarily in a mobile home park; that the land would have to be zoned R-7. Mr. Stevens mentioned individual lots throughout the City which would have to 6e rezoned R-7 before modular construction could be placed on the lots. Mr. Denton clarified by instructing that it would be doubtful if the Commission or Council would rezone a single lot from R-1 to R-7, but certainly a parcel of property for that purpose would be a possibility. He again pointed out to Mr. Stevens that the purpose of this amendment to the Ordinance had nothing whatsoever to do with inspect-ion of modular units; but rather only dealt with the location of same. Mr. Stevens again stated that his only question concerned where modular homes could be located if this Ordinance amendment were passed, and said that now his understanding was that if an area were developed • using modular construction, that land would have to be zoned R-7. Ed Brooks came forward and identified himself as being there on behalf of the Texas Development Group and James M. Sink and Associates, Architects. He informed the Com- mission that Mr. Sink and other associates present were architects and developers of Northgate. He said that he was not speaking entirely against the amendment to the Ordinance, but that he did not know exactly when to speak. He indicated that this development group was not against many of the things which concern the City, but rather is concerned about why there needs to be an amendment to the Ordinance to prevent stacking, if that is based upon some publicity which he said had been alluded to earlier and that is most likely in connection with The Northgate. He said that to compare a mobile home to modular construction is unthinkable once one is educated to modular construction. He then explained and compared modular homes to moving a home, and of- fered to educate and to make sources available to any city official either on site of construction of modular homes, or on site where units are being stacked. The group's aim is to inform and to meet all requirements, whether Federal, State or Local. Mr. Brooks pointed out that by definition mobile homes and modular construction are dif- ferent. Mr. Denton pointed out that the State Legislature has thrown them together in the beforementioned statute; however this amendment has nothing to do with the way these units are constructed, but rather where they will be located in our City. Mr. Brooks again asked why there was a need for regulating the location of modular homes. Mr. Denton deferred to the City Planner who stated that the City needs some kind of control while a study is made of modular construction and what controls the City actually has. This is a stop-gap measure to prevent landowner revolt, which has • come up in the past, and could very well happen in the future as more modular units are introduced to our area. Mr. Brooks indicated that to take this action now after the adverse publicity concerning the Northgate project would only affect one project, that being The Northgate. Mr. Mayo pointed out that this Ordinance is meant in no way to reflect on the Northgate project. --~_ PAZ - July 1, Ig82 page 9 Jim Sink then stated that the Northgate project was designed from the outset to meet the local ordinances and codes, and they were not aware of a jurisdictional dispute • until they were well into this project, and are very uncomfortable when there are jurisdictional disputes, and have determined as a matter of policy that they are going to meet local standards and the interpretations of local building officials. They ask that the City inspect the project. He went on to say that he would suggest that if such an ordinance to control location is to be passed, that the City consider condi- tioning it with language to the effect that modular housing would not be permitted in any zone except the R-7 unless it meets the City's standard building codes. The answer to this was that it would be lumping location and building specifications into one ordinance, and our aim is only to control location at this time, and this ordinance does not concern itself with construction specifications, etc. Mr. Denton then told the Northgate representatives that the City certainly appreciates their attempts and apparently successful attempts to comply with our codes, but it does appear that the State has preempted us in regulating these buildings as to the safety aspect. Temple Ligon then spoke identifying himself as the project director of the Northgate project, and stated that he had conferred with all City Officials at every turn, but was ignorant at the beginning of the State rulings. Now the project is retroactively complying with City codes. The Building Official had been invited to go to the factory, but he refused due to personal conflicts. Mr. Denton and Mr. Perry both concurred that this retroactive compliance was true, and expressed appreciation for this. At this time no one else spoke and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hill asked if the problem stemmed from our not having the language to deal with • modular construction, and Mr. Denton pointed out that we simply do not know enough about modular units. Mr. Hill asked if this amendment was sort of an embargo, and how long it would take to study the problem. Mr. Mayo answered that he hoped to complete the study within a year. Mr. Bailey then made a motion to recommend approval of this amendment to the Ordinance. There was no second. Motion died. Mr. Hall then made a motion that this matter be referred back to the Planning Depart- ment for consideration of alternate ways of controlling the location of modular homes, perhaps through either creating a new zoning classification or other alternatives, and that the staff bring us back the alternate recommendations at our next meeting. Mr. Mayo informed Commission that there was no way this was possible; that it will take at least 6 months to come up with alternate recommendations due to the amount of study involved. Mr. Hill said that he was reluctant to lump modular construction and mobile homes together. Mr. Fleming then. seconded the motion. Mr. Miller expressed his disagree- ment with this motion. Motion failed with 2 votes in favor and 4 against. Mr. Bailey made a motion to recommend approval of this amendment to the Ordinance. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. Mr. Hill said he would rather table the item because he was not comfortable with making a decision one way or another with no more informa- tion than he had. Motion died because of tie vote (3-3)• Mr. Hill made a motion to table the item until the next meeting. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. Motion died due to tied voting (3-3)• • Mr. Miller pointed out that it will take a lengthy time to study this item and this amendment might just be the appropriate intermediate measure. Mr. Hill said he was not against this amendment, he was just uncertain. Mr. Denton pointed out that most PAZ - July 1, 1982 page 10 cities that are attempting some kind of control are doing it exactly this way. Mr. Perry said that the-State says this is the only way to control modular housing. • Mr. Miller made a motion to recommend approval of this amendment to the Ordinance. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4 in favor, 1 against, 1 abstention. Due to the lateness of the hour, the acting chairman called for a 5 minute recess. The meeting was then recalled to order. AGENDA ITEM N0. 12: 82-805: A public hearing on the question of amending the Zoning Ordinance No. 850 revising the parking requirements for Medical/Dental Clinics. Mr. Mayo explained the amendment. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Miller made a motion to recommend approval of this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance No. 850. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 13: 82-420: Consideration of a parking lot plan for Southwest Crossing Townhomes located on Southwest Parkway east of Dartmouth Avenue. Mr. Mayo explained the project, pointing out that the landscaping on the site plan was inadequate. He requested a note to identify the groundcover, trees, shrubs, etc. With this landscaping note, staff recommends approval. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Cruse, developer of the project to identify the landscaping or else present the Commission with a landscaping plan. Mr. Cruse attempted to identify the landscaping, however Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the site plans, but to • withhold the building permit until such time the landscaping plan is presented and approved by staff. Mr. Cruse said landscaping would be done according to the Ordinance. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 14: 82-422: Consideration of a parking lot plan for I.M.E. Condos located on University Drive in University Park II. Mr. Mayo explained the project, and indicated that all P.R.C. recommendations had been completed, therefore staff recommends approval of plans. Mr. Bailey made a motion to approve site plans, but to withhold the building permit until such time that the land- scaping plan is presented and approved by staff. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. Mr. Denton pointed out that it was bad practice of the Commission to delegate what is acceptable or not to the staff, and that the Commission should be doing this. Mr. Kelly called for a vote. Mr. Bailey withdrew his motion. Mr. Miller withdrew his second. Mr. Hall then made a motion to approve the site plan subject to developer returning to the Commission with a landscape plan which must be approved prior to issuance of a building permit. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 15: 82-423: Consideration of a parking lot plan for an Office Complex located between Spring Loop and University Drive in University Park II. Mr. Mayo explained the project and said staff would require the same type landscaping note as in the item covered before, then would recommend approval upon receipt of it. Mr. Robin Bruno with the architectural firm said developer's intent is to keep existing trees but to prune them back. Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the plans with the P.R.C. recommendations, but to withhold the building permit until a landscaping plan is • approved by the Commission. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. I ~i __ P&Z - July 1, 1982 page 11 AGENDA ITEM N0. 16: 82-231: A final plat - Lots 1-5 Block 2 Fed Mart ~ Lots 1 & 2 Block V University Park II. • Mr. Mayo explained the plat. Mr. Miller made a motion to approve. Mr. Bailey seconded. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 17: 82-232: A final lat - Lot 31 and Part of Lot 26 D.A.Smith Subdivision located on the SE corner of Live Oak St. and Texas Avenue 707 Complex . Mr. Mayo explained the plat and said staff recommends approval. Mr. Hall asked who had control over private access easements to which Mr. Mayo referred him to the City Engineer. Mr. Bailey made a motion to approve the plat with Mr. Fleming seconding. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 18: 82-233: A final plat - Lots 3 & 4 Block 1. of Post Oak Mall. Mr. Mayo explained and indicated staff recommends approval. Mr. Bailey made a motion to approve. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 19: Other business. Mr. Miller said that he hoped that developers would become aware that the City was serious about having good landscaping plans presented with their plans. Mr. Mayo indicated that staff is attempting to re-write the Ordinance to set a minimum standard for the acceptable amount of landscaping. Mr. Hall asked when the next Plan 2000 meeting was scheduled. Mr. Mayo asked if it was the Commission's intention to have more public hearings or should we go direct to • the final plan. Mr. Bailey indicated he believed due to the input from the last meet- ing that another workshop would be in order. Mr. Hall agreed that each individual needs to give input before it goes to Council. Mayo agreed that changes should be made prior to sending the plan to Council. C. R. Watson asked to speak, indicating that he is a developer and architect and that he believes the most important thing had been overlooked with regard to landscaping at the City Hall, and further recommended that a certain percent of the total budget be allocated to landscaping. Mr. Hall made a motion for the meeting to adjourn. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously and meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: Roy W. Kelly, Vice Chair n ATTEST: ~, ~ • Dian Jones ity Secretary