Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/1983 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 1983 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: All present MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Asst. Director of Planning Callaway, Asst. Zoning Official Dupies ~ Planning Technician Volk Chairman Hill opened the meeting. AGENDA ITEM N0. l: Approval of Minutes - October 6, 1983 Mr. Bailey pointed out several typographical errors and requested they be changed; also requested the word "is" changed to "be" at the bottom of page 2. Mr. Martyn asked that "Mr. Martyn's objection being that this rezoning does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan" be added to the last part of Agenda Item No. 5. With these changes and additions, Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the minutes with Mr. Bailey seconding. Motion carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear Visitors No one spoke. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: EMERGENCY ITEM: A public hearin to consider the annexation of an area of approximately 16.6_._58 acres located in the Crawford Burnett League, Abstract 7, and Robert Stevenson League, Abstract 5 This tract adjoins the present city limits of the Cit of Colle a Station and is enerall bordered on the south b sections of Arnold Road and Graham Road. Family Tree Subdivision . Mr. Mayo presented the request, located it on an area map and explained that staff recom- mends approval of this annexation which has been petitioned by the owner. Mr. Martyn asked why it is considered an emergency item and Mr. Mayo explained the public had been notified by ad fora public hearing on this date, but this item had inadvertantly been left off the agenda, and offered his apologies. Public hearing was opened. No one spoke. Public hear- ing was closed. Mr. Martyn asked about future annexation plans, and if it is logical to take this piece of land into the City and leave out that area to the east which is adjacent. Mr. Mayo said the Clty has not received petitions for annexations from those owners and apparently they are not ready to apply for annexation now. Mr. Hill asked if the maximum area allowed to be annexed by the City had been reached, and Mr. Mayo said it has not, as most of the large, recent annexation had come from petitions for annexation presented by owners. Mr. Bailey made a motion to recommend approval of this annexation with Mr. Kelly seconding. Motion carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 83-119: A public hearin on the question of rezoning (PENDING ANNEXA- TION) a 166.58 acre tract in the Crawford Burnett Lea ue abstract no. 7 and the Robert • Stevenson Lea ue abstract no. 5 located on the north side of Graham Road at the inter- section of Graham Road and Schaffer Road. Famil Tree Subdivision Re nested zonin 2 acres C-N Neighborhood-Business, 27, acres Apartment Medium Density District R-5 and 136.7 acres Single Family Residential District R-1. Application is in the name of Jerry Bishop, Agent. -. P&Z Minutes 10-20-83 page 2 Mr. Callaway presented the request and explained that this request covers the area just recommended for annexation in Item #3. He explained that the plat for this subdivision had . recently been approved by both PAZ and Council. He pointed out area uses, saying the Comprehensive Plan reflects this area as low density residential with medium density at the western portion, that this map presented with this request from the applicant is drawn almost exactly tdentica1 to the recently approved Land Use Map, and that staff recom- mends approval. Mr. Bailey asked what was proposed in the western portion and Mr. Callaway said again that Medium Density Residential is proposed (R-5), but there is enough R-1 Single Family Zoning requested when combined with the requested R-5, the subdivision would still remain low density. Mr. Bailey asked about any sewer constraints, and Mr. Callaway explained this would be connected with the Southwood Valley extensions, and that there are some existing sewer constraints downstream, but they would probably not affect this area. The public hearing was opened, and Jerry Bishop, app licant, came forward explaining he represents the owners and is here primarily to answer any questions. He said that the gross density of this subdivision as requested would be less than 6 units per acre and that the Master Preliminary Plan had previously been approved by both PAZ and Council. Mr. Miller asked why R-5 was being requested, and Mr. Bishop explained that R-5 allows for an apartment complex rather than a series of duplexes or 4-plexes. Mr. Kaiser asked if Welsh would divide the R-9 from the R-5 and Mr. Bishop answered that it would, and further that both Rock Prairie Road and Welsh separate the R-1 from the R-5. Mr. Bailey suggested that perhaps R-5 adjacent to R-1 might cause problems at site plan review and Mr. Bishop said that is why the entire tract is being zoned R-5 now. Mr. Hansen asked about street right- of-way widths and Mr. Bishop said that Welsh is a 47 ft. curb-to-curb thoroughfare and the rear of the houses would face Welsh. No one else spoke. Public hearing was closed. • Mr. Miller referred to project maintenance and said he prefers an apartment complex to a series of 4-plexes. Mr. Martyn said he fears that a bad precedent might be set with approval of this request because It does not represent step-down zoning and is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, and further that he disagrees with taking an average density count. Mr. Miller said the Comprehensive Plan shows low density to the east with medium density to the west of IJe1sh, and the street would be the buffer. Mr. Hill said that Mr. Callaway had indicated that this use plan- had been almost drawn to scale from the Land Use Plan. Mr. Bailey then made a motion to recommend approval of this request pending annexation, with Mr. Kelly seconding. Motion carried 6-1 with Mr. Martyn opposing. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 83-710: A ublic hearing on the uestion of rantin a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Day Care Facility at 1 12 Brothers. Application is in the name of Judy PavlPnski. Mr. Callaway explained that this application is for a daycare center to be located in an existing shopping center and is similar to 2 requests which were previously approved. He further explained area zoning as C-1, PUD and R-6, that this request is for 15-20 children and would be a combined drop-in and tong term center. Mr. Kelly asked the size of the building and Mr. Callaway said he did not know. Mr. Kaiser referred to a site plan for a previously approved daycare center, and asked why we did not have one for this request. Mr. Callaway advised that the site plan for the center in Parkway Square was one the City has on file, and that we do not have one available for this shopping center. Mr. Kelly stated that he could not determine the size of this space when he was driving by, and wondere about requirements. Mr. Callaway said that we have no size requirements for a use permit, and that a daycare center must comply with other City and State regulations regarding size, • number of children, etc. The public hearing was opened. Bob Pavlinski came forward as a representative of the applicant and stated the lease facility P&Z Minutes 10-20-83 page 3 • is 750 sq.ft, and will be the initPal project of the center, stating further that applica- tion must be made at state level, through the public health department, and for this use permit, and no one has determined which should be done first, but if one application is denied, all others fall. Mr. Miller asked again how many children would be cared for and Mr. Pavllnski said the application is for 15-20 children. Mr. Hansen asked if there were any facilities outside for this center, and the answer was negative. The combination type service was discussed. Mr. Kelly said the State allows a certain number of children in a residence beyond those living there, and he thinks this Commission can limit the number allowed in a factllty. Mr. Pavllnski said his facility cannot exceed the maximum allowable limit set by State regulations. Mr. Martyn said he is concerned with the amount of square footage, and stated he believes 20 children in 750 sq. ft. might be suitable for short time drop-in service, but not for long term, as this allows only 36 sq. ft. per child. He went on to state that this minimal amount of square footage with no outdoor facilities is of concern to him. Mr. Pavllnski stated that the parent would decide if he wants to leave his child there. Mr. Hi11 stated he believes the Commission should only concern itself with the site of the facility and safety-with regard to getting into and out of that facility. Mr. Martyn disagreed. Mr. Hill stated this Commi$ion has no information concerning the internal requirements of a facility and that is why the State handles licenses for this type of facility. Mr. Miller asked the following questions and Mr. Pavllnski gave the ans- wers indPcated In parentheses: How may employees? (2) Will it be furnished? (yes) How? (Typical kindergarten-type classrooms with toys, rugs, etc.) Ages? (open, but primarily from infants, to toddlers and preschool ages) Do you plan expansion? (yes, at some later time, and that primarily is why this facility was chosen) What will you do if the Commission limits the number of children allowed? (A closer look will have to be taken to determine plans. What alternative recourse is available to us if a limited number is set?) Mr. Miller replied that the applicant could appeal to the City Council if he desires. Mr. Miller then stated that now he is also concerned with the amount of square footage which remains after room for 2 employees and furniture is taken out of the total available. Linda Dawes came forward stating that the State requires 35 sq. ft. per child, and Mr. Martyn asked if this figure constitutes the total or usuable square footage, and she replied the total required. Mrs. Dawes said that they really do not anticipate keeping 20 children, but were only applying fora license to cover that number. No one else spoke and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Miller said that he favors the use, but given the space criteria, he thinks the Commis- sion might. be wise to set a limit on the number of children. Mr. Hill read from the Zoning Ordinance concerning rules governing issuance of Conditional Use Permits. Mr. Miller said he understands that, and that this Commission had never set limits on the number allowed in a commercial facility, but that it has in a residential facility. He further realizes this is a gray area and that this is just over what the applicant said State requires, but he would be opposed to 20 children in this facility, and not 15. Mr. Martyn said the State sets limits, but thinks the Commission could set a limit concerning the number of short term children vs, the number of long term. Mr. Bailey said he disagrees with Mr. Miller, stating that the Commission has looked at traffic in a neighborhood when setting the limit on the number of children allowed, and because this is in a commercial zone and a commercial shopping center, the traffic would have no impact. Mr. Hill said that short term service might create greater traffic hazards than long term service, but he is still trying to relate any restrictions to the charge placed on this Commission by Ordinance. More discussion followed with Mr. Martyn stating that he still does not think that many children can be kept in an area this small. Mr. Hilt said he has no disagreement with that opinion, but 't hat is not the charge. given this Commission and it has no control over that. • Mr. Ke11y made a motion to approve this Con~itiona1 Use Permit, limiting the number of children allowed to 15. Mr. Kaiser seconded this motion. Mr. Martyn said if the Commission had no objections to limiting the number of children allowed below that of State standards, P&Z Minutes 10-20-83 page 4 why not 1Pmlt the length of time of stay per child. Mr. Kelly said that is not the con- cern of this Commission. Mr. Miller said he would object to limiting the length per stay • because it might affect the future growth of the center. Mr. Bailey said that if the State allows 20 children in an area this size, he does not think this Commission should limit it to 15. Mr. Hansen agreed, and said he would consider limiting the number if there was an external problem at this location, but apparently there is none. Mr. Callaway confirmed that there is adequate parking for the shopping center. Votes were cast and the motion to approve, limiting the number of children to 15, carried 4-3 with Bailey, Martyn and Hansen voting against. Mr. Bailey ~ Mr. Hansen voted no because they did not want to place a restriction on the use permit. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: 83-117 ~ 83-118: A ublic hearin on the uestion of rezonin 2 tracts of land totallin a roximate1 g acres located on the northwest corner of State Hi h- way and Barron Road Courtland Subdivision from Agriculture-Open Space District A-0 to Single Family Re5_ldentfal District R-1, Single Family Residential District R-lA and Mr. Callaway explained that the advertising of these rezoning requests had indicated "pend- ing annexation", but that the area has since been annexed into the City. He then explained the request, broke down the acreage per zone requested and gave the area land uses and zonings. Stated that the Comprehensive Plan indicates this area will be commercial, office, low and medium density residential, and specifically that the northwest corner of Barron Road and SH6 is reflected as medium density residential. He further stated that staff agrees with the location of the requested zoning, but has concerns with the requested depth of the commercial zone, as it does not comply with the minimum depth (400 ft.) which is recommended in approved development policies, and the lack of a buffer (such as A-P) to separate the general commercial and the low density residential areas. He stated that the R-lA area is already platted and would be difficult to change, and cites alternatives being other zoning of the requested commercial land or notification to the applicant that site plans will get careful scrutiny at the time they are presented. Discussion followed concerning the actual depth of the C-1 zone (310 ft. off SH6) and then Mr. Hill pointed out that the preliminary and final plats were approved and wondered why staff is just now concerned with these 2 items. Mr. Callaway pointed out that evaluation of rezoning requests differ from standards used for plats. Mr. Mayo stated that he had discussed these problems with the applicant and had encouraged a 400 ft. minimum depth for any commercial development. Mr. Hill stated that these th)ngs should be covered during platting time. Mr. Mayo agreed, explaining that platting is different from rezoning, but that these concerns are not something new just tonight, but staff had in the past encouraged the applicant to make the commercial area a minimum 400 ft. depth. Mr. Mayo reminded the Commission again that zoning is different from platting, and that an effort is made to keep platting separate from zoning, further pointing out that a plat does not lock a developer into something he cannot change and the desired 400 ft. minimum depth and the buffer has been discussed with the developer in the past. Mr. Miller asked about the standing row of trees in the drainage area, and wondered if they would be considered a buffer. Mr, Mayo asked Mr. Callaway if the depth of the C-1 is out- side the required R.O.W. and Mr. Callaway indicated that it is. The public hearing was opened and Don Garrett, engineer/surveyor of this project came for- ward and pointed out the depth on the map is incorrect and needs to be shifted and further that the trees in the drainage area will be used as a buffer. He also pointed out a City • of Bryan transmission tine which cannot be shifted and is a factor in planning the develop- ment of this land. Mr. Garrett said the proposed C-1 tract is 455 ft. deep from the exist- ing R.O.W., and 344 ft. from the extended R.O.W, Mr. Martyn asked if the applicant would P&Z Minutes 10-20-83 page 5 object to a buffering zone, and Mr, Garrett said that a major street and drainage would serve as buffers, and further that this would not be strip • Mr. Miller asked which zone the tree line is in and Mr. Garrett said the zoning line and In the back yards of the single family lots. • the trees in the commercial zoning. trees are on the Weldon Jordan, representative of the owners came forward stating there is adequate depth in the commercial zoned tract If the Highway Department does not take the R.O.W. Mr. Mayo pointed out that the purchase of the R.O.W. has already begun. Mr. Jordan spoke of various depths of tracts of land and said that he had earlier conversations with Mr. Mayo during the preliminary platting and asked Mr. Mayo if he had concerns with the C-1 tract being less than 400 ft. in depth, and Mr. Mayo replied that he had concerns, stating the 400 ft. guide- line, but he (Mr. Jordan) did not get the impression that staff would oppose the request. He pointed out that there is no access to SH6, but rather to Barron Road, and suggested the R-1A zoning with patio homes should be considered as a buffer (as had been suggested to him by a P&Z Commissioner) and Mr. Mayo gave the impression that he had no concern with this. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Jordan If he is aware that if this is approved, at site plan re- view there might be constraints, and Mr. Jordan indicated that he is aware of this. Mr. Martyn asked why C-N or C-3 had not been planned, and Mr. Bailey pointed out that the tract is too large for that type zoning. Mr. Martyn then pointed out that step-down zoning is not being practiced once again. George Ball came forward to make comments, saying that he has represented both the buyer and the seller of this land, and had worked with them, staff, and engineers because he knew of some constraints, but did not realize until he read in the newspaper today that there is a problem with the proposed zoning. He said he was under the impression that they were in compliance with PAZ and Council requirements, and further that the 400 ft. depth figure on commercial development had never been mentioned to him. He went on to say that other things had come up and adjustments had been msde, but that he is perplexed to find out on the final day that there is a problem. Jim Woods, a partner in the project came forward and spoke of working with a church in setting this up, as welt as the previously mentioned transmission line, and the tree buffer area. Mr. Miller asked why the R-lA land is disjointed, and Mr. Woods said the size of the creek governed the shape. Mr. Miller asked if there is street access across the drain- age easement and Mr. Woods said there is not. No one else spoke and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Miller said that perhaps any configuration which would maintain the trees as a buffer might be worth a smaller than recommended commercia) area. Mr. Martyn questioned the differences between the applicant and the staff, and asked for an explanation. Mr. Miller pointed out that this Commission is not bound by either staff's recommendations or the applicant's opinion or request. Mr. Hill said he had looked up the background minutes and notes and it was obvious that this large tract would become C-1 rather than C-3 or C-N. Mr. Martyn said he found it difficult to think that staff would recommend C-1 adjacent to R-1, and also to think that someone would apply for that type zoning. Mr. Hill pointed out that he never saPd that staff had recommended R-1 zoning. Mr. Mayo reminded the Commission that compatible zones had been discussed, and patio homes had been discussed at one time as a minimal buffer if this was actually planned. Mr. Hansen said the natural drainage area and the trees themselves would serve as a buffer. Mr. Miller said he had no problem with the R-) or the R-lA, but the C-1 adjacent to them is the problem. Mr. Bailey referred to the Shenandoah plat discussion and the possibility of having a small commercial tract in that development. Mr. Kelly asked how much would be lost from the R-lA area if the minimum depth of a C-1 tract is met. Mr. Miller pointed out that the trees would be lost, and that would be a detriment. Mr. Hill said that he knows R-1 and R-lA are similar, but thinks they are really different, and the R-lA would serve as a buffer of sorts. Mr. Martyn said that one way out of this would be for the Commission to stick to strict site plan ii~_ PAZ Minutes 10-20-83 page 6 review and careful planning, and development could be controlled by the Commission. Mr. Miller made a motion to recommend approval of this item as requested with Mr. Bailey se- • conding. Motion carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: 83-239: Final Plat - T.J.Addition (2.40 acres) Mr. Mayo presented the request and located the land on a map, pointing out that the re- quested 10 ft. R.O.W. along Sebesta has not been shown on the plat and is necessary. Staff would recommend approval of this plat with the inclusion of the required R.O.W. Mr. Miller referred to a note on the plat and said he thinks this would indicate a curb cut to each lot and asked for an additional note indicating curb cuts may be limited. Mr. Mayo pointed out that the Clty Engineer controls location and number of curb cuts, and that the location of a private access easement does not determine the location of curb cuts, which would be done at site plan review. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve the plat with Presubmission Conference recommendations, specifically pointing out the required dedication of the 10 ft. R.O.W. along Sebesta and the access easement from Lot 1 through Lot 2. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion to approve the plat with Presubmission Conference recommendations. Motion carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: 83-314: Preliminary Plat - Timber Ridge Addition 2nd Installment(10.97A) Mr. Mayo explained this plat, pointing out the electrical department may require additional easements for a feeder tine, but hoped this could be worked out prior to the final plat. He also pointed out there are existing sanitary sewer line problems and the developer is working with the City, but more easements may be required for that as well, but should be determined prior to the final plat. Staff would recommend approval of this preliminary plat as shown, and further recommend that the City Council abandon a section of Westover • and Berkeley because they could never be extended and now serve no public purpose. Mr. Bailey made a motion to approve this preliminary plat with Presubmission Conference recom- mendations including item #5; Mr. Miller seconded. Motion carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM N0, g: 83-442: Parking Lot Plan - J.J.Muggs Restaurant Mr. Mayo stated the applicant had requested this be withdrawn from the agenda. AGENDA ITEM N0, 10: 83-443: Parking Lot Plan - Consideration of "as built" and Proposed addition to Welsh Office Building. • Mr. Hansen was excused from the Commission. Mr. Mayo explained the as-built plan presented and the problems with that plan. He also explained the proposed addition to the project which would include some of the changes referred to in the P.R.C. report. He pointed out that the P.R.C. report states that the committee's first choice is to demand that the required 8 ft. setback be upheld, and that the second recommendations were made only should the Commission decide to accept the as-built 4 ft. setback. Mr. Mayo went on to point out other problems on the proposed addition to the project, includ- ing the designated dumpster location which would make it almost impossible to reach the dumpster by truck, and suggested that it be moved to a corner in the rear of the existing building. He further indicated that the plans need to show the fire lane at the rear of the buildings, and that staff would recommend that the area between the buildings be grassed and landscaped rather than paved, which would then require the addition of a short section of curbing at the front of the building. Staff would also request a note, if it is dis- covered that the note is legal, that these two buildings would not be allowed a typical high traffic generating business such as a night club, lounge or restaurant. Mr. Miller said that at the P.R.C, review, it had been pointed out that if the developer would cut down on the size of the additional building, then the parking spaces might suffice, but this new plan has changed the parking plan and still has not increased the number of parking spaces. Mr. Mayo explained that the 4 ft. setback vs. the 8 ft. setback should be resolved before other matters are discussed. Mr. Miller then said that he could not support the 4 ft. PAZ Minutes 10-20-83 page 7 setback because there were no extenuating circumstances which caused this error. Mr. Hill said that he hopes to make this a workable project. Mr. Mayo said that other developers have made comments about this 4 ft. setback, and that staff fears future problems if this is accepted, but that nothing punitive is intended in staff's recommendation. Mr. Miller agreed that his decision reflected nothin punitive, but that he wanted to reiter- ate that there had been no extenuating circumstances to cause the 4 ft. setback. Mr. Hill said that Pf the 8 ft. setback is required, parking will be lost. Mr. Kaiser asked what the impact requirement of the 8 ft. setback would be. Mr. Mayo said there is difficulty with the planning of this site plan, and the relocation of the building or cutting down on the size of the additional building might be the answer. General discussion followed con- cerning re-planning of this project to make it workable and Mr.Kaiser asked about the feasibility of the parking spaces behind the building. Mr. Mayo said they would be for employee only parking. Mr. Kelly said that when driving by this project it doesn't look too bad, particularly after looking at neighboring projects, and most people wouldn't notice it, except perhaps other developers. Mr. Bailey made a motion to accept the 4 ft. setback on the front of the tract with the existing building, further pointing out that he is not now making a motion to accept or approve the whole site plan. Mr, Kelly seconded the motion. Mr. Miller again pointed out that there is no reason for the 4 ft. setback. Mr. Martyn commented that he is in favor of holding people to ordinance requirements, but looks at this project individually and agrees with Mr. Kelly that it looks all right, but has con- cern that the angle-parking will cause traffic problems and thinks the elimination of the 4 ft. greenbelt area would be an even better way to solve the problem. Mr. Mayo disagreed because there Is more land available in Phase II to solve all the problems. Mr. Miller • agreed with Mr. Mayo. Mr. Martyn said if that is the case, then perhaps the second building should be shifted to accommodate parking. Mr. Kaiser paraphrased by stating that Mr. Mayo disagrees with the design solution presented. Mr. Mayo concurred. Mr. Kaiser asked if this is a unique situation, and Mr. Mayo said it is unique only because of mistakes the developer has made, but there is additional property adjacent which can solve the problem with design, and he would have to add that this is not a very good design, but could not comment as to whether or not it would be a safety problem, but it would probably more of an inconvenience. He added that It simply is a rather poor site design. Mr. Hi11 brought the motion forward regarding the acceptance of the 4 ft. setback and this motion carried 4-2 with Mr. Miller s Mr. Martyn against. Mr. Miller asked for comments concerning this acceptance of the 4 ft. setback now. Mr. Hill indicated he did not want to become a prisoner to problems on this site, but is looking at the overall project, and indicated further that he could deal with the allowance of the 4 ft. setback and the requirement of the 8 ft. setback in the future. Mr. Mayo said that if the City does not stand behind staff and their standards, there will be no standards. Mr. Miller asked again for the rationale for this variance. Mr. Hill said this project is already "as built". Mr. Martyn pointed out he had been locked in to the additional building as shown on this plan, and now it has occurred to him that this is not the case, and he believes the plan should be redrawn and re-presented to this Commission. Mr. Kaiser asked if the applicant had been apprised of the problems, and was informed that he had been. Mr. Bailey then made a motion to approve this site plan with all P.R.C. recommendations other than the 8 ft. setback requirement, and also with the followin additional recommendations: (1) Move the dumpster to the northwest corner of the tract; (2~ Show the required fire lanes; • (3) Substitute grass and landscaping between the buildings for the pavement which is shown; and (4) Include a note, if this is legal, to indicate that no high intensity uses or high traffic generator businesses will be allowed to occupy either of these buildings. Mr. Kaiser seconded the motion which carried 4-2 with Miller ~ Martyn voting against. Mr. Martyn added that he voted against It because he fears a conflict between the angle parking PAZ Minutes 10-20-83 page 8 • • and the head-ln parking. Mr. Miller said that he voted against it because the applicant had removed the rear parking from the plan which had been reviewed at P.R.C. (Hansen abstained AGENDA ITEM N0. 11: 83-444: Parking Lot Plan- Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers in Ashford Square. Mr. Mayo explained the project as shown, pointing out that the additional parking (on Lot 4) which had been included on the plan reviewed at the P.R.C. meeting has been eliminated from this revised plan, but there is sti11 enough parking available on site. He pointed out note #5 on the P.R.C. report, indicating that the drive at the curb cut entrance is only 12 ft. wide on this site plan. He also informed the Commission that the ZBA had just denied the 35 ft. pylon sign for this project, as the signage for Ashford Square had been limited by PAZ, and plans will now probably consist of a number of low signs in a common, bermed area. Staff does recommend approval of this site plan as shown. Mr. Miller said that the caliper sizes of trees must be shown, and the one gallon size of shrubs, as indi- cated, will not be sufficient. Mr. Miller then made a motion to approve this plan with PRC recommendations, tnc1uding further modification that the one gallon shrubs will be made 2 gallon shrubs. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion which carried 6-0 with Mr. Hansen abstain- ing. AGENDA ITEM N0. 12: Other business Mr. Hill pointed out that each Commissioner has received a new listing of dates and sche- dules for the upcoming PRC reviews, and suggested that if a Commissioner cannot keep the appointed date, he find his own replacement and let the secretary know. Mr. Miller reported that the landscape sub-committee will distribute an outline in the packets for the next meeting for discussion after individual review. Mr. Mayo ~ Mr. Bailey reported that a copy of the recommendations from the Northgate Com- mittee with comments from the PAZ were sent to Council, and Council voted unanimously to accept the recommendations as presented by the Committee, and further has directed staff to present an implementation plan to Council on November 22, to suggest how these recom- mendations can be carried out and to include a feasible time-frame for completion. Mr. Hi11 mentioned several detached signs for staff to check and also reported that he would be absent at the next meeting and Mr. Miller would chair the meeting. ' Mr. Martyn spoke of replacement of dead trees at Post Oak Mall but staff could not ans- wer if they had been notified to replace them or had done It if their own volition. Mr. Bailey made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Miller seconding. Motion carried unanimously (7-0). APPROVED:~~) n ATTEST: Dian Jones, City Secretary Geray9~`Miller, Vice Chairman • ~, i• n U PLANNING AND ZONING CpMMISSiON GUEST REGISTER DATE `D_ °~~ ~~'~ NAME 1. 2. 3• 4. 5, 6. 7. 8 . ADDRESS o ~ ~ ~3d ~'S ,. c`~ `~ 1 ~b3 ~s Z(7C~ ( ~J, J~~~SPL ~i ~ ~ ~~~ v-~ c~c ;~" .~ 11. ~ 2 C 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 1 ~ . .. 18. ~. 19 . .. 20. 21. 22. - 23. 24. 25.