Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/02/1981 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 2, 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, Assistant Director of Planning Callaway, Zoning Official Kee, Fire Marshal Davis, Planning- Assistant Longley. AGENDA ITEM N0. 1 -- Approval of minutes, meeting of March 19, 1981. Commissioner Gardner moved that the minutes be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hazen and unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM Nn. 2 -- Naar vicitnrc_ No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3 -- Reconsideration of a request to rezone portions of a 40 79 acre tract on the south side of Southwest Parkway East between Texas Avenue and the East Bypass from Single Family District R-1 to Apartment District R-4 and Townhouse • District R-3. The application is in the name of the Cruse Cor . Mr. Mayo showed the revised zoning plan for the tract. It showed the eastern 13.19 acres zoned R-3; 23.51 acres of the remainder of the tract zoned R-4 with a 3.0 acre R-1 church tract and a 1.0 acre C-N tract taken out of the R-4 area. Commissioner Watson moved that the item be removed from the table for discussion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hazen and unanimously approved. Mr. Mayo explained that the Commission could not recommend approval of the C-N tract since it had not been included in the official rezoning request. He added that the 3.0 acre tract should not be left R-1 because, if the church did not build on the land, it would remain as an island of R-1 surrounded by apartment zoning. He suggested that this 3.0 acre tract be zoned R-4 or some other zone which would be compatible with the zoning of the balance of the tract. Mr. Mayo also suggested that a two lot deep buffer zone be provided between the R-4 area and the single family propert along Krenek Tap. He said that R-3, R-lA of R-2 would be adequate buffer zones. Commissioner Gardner asked if any more planning had been done in the areas around the subject property. Mr. Mayo said that the area had been studied from the standpoint of property own- ership and subdivision and that a preliminary circulation pattern had been worked out. He pointed out the location at which a collector street would have to cross the • subject tract. Commissioner Gardner asked if population holding capacities in the surrounding areas had been studied. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 1981 7:00 P.M. Page 2 Mr. Mayo showed the Commission the acreages of the surrounding areas and said that populations at various densities could be caluclated by multiplication. He said that the people on Auburn Court were most concerned about the area to the east of them and that he could see this area as being developed at anything other than low density. He suggested that a row of duplex might be allowed along Southwest Parkway. Commissioner Gardner said that the proposal seemed to be isolated and could not fit into a neighborhood pattern. Chairman Maher asked how the most recent request compared to the original request in the area of overall density. Mr. Mayo said that the original request had been for all R-5 zoning and that the current request had a much lower overall density of about 24 units per acre. Chairman Maher pointed out that if the recommended buffer along the south line of the property were included, the density would be even lower, but that the zoning would still leave a long unbroken line of apartment zoning along Southwest Parkway. Commissioner Livingston asked what zoning Mr. Mayo would recommend for the church tract. Mr. Mayo advised that this 3.0 acres be zoned either R-4 or R-3 so as to be com- patible with the surrounding development if the church did not build on the tract. Commissioner Livingston asked how the proposal fit in with the revised land use plan. Mr. Mayo said that the existing land use plan showed the entire area as low density residential, but that due to the mix of land uses possible in the proposed zoning, the request was not totally out of line with the plan. He said that apartment devel- opment could not, however, be carried out over much of the remaining land. He added that apartment could also be a viable part of neighborhoods. He said that the real compatibility problems between single family and apartments were in areas where many acres of apartments had been developed adjacent to single family as in the areas along Highway 30. He said that in the Plan 2000 neighborhood meetings, there had been two views on apartment development expressed. One opinion was that all apartments should be concentrated in one area away from single family areas and that the other view was that apartment development should be dispersed throughout the city but not at high densities are in large tracts. Commissioner Gardner showed the Commission a map of the area showing the proposed extension of Dartmouth to the East Bypass and the potential areas for neighborhood developments. He said that he could not see the rationale for the requested rezon- ing. He suggested that the completion of Plan 2000 would allow for better judgement on the development of the area. Commissioner Watson said that, whatever was done on the request, that the Commission should make a strong statement on the development of the land around the Auburn Court- Brentwood area. Commissioner Hazen suggested that the church tract might be zoned A-P in order to allow for a break in the apartment development along Southwest Parkway. Commissioner Gardner suggested that, if detailed planning could be done, the Commis- sion might be able to develop a "prototype" neighborhood unit to guide them in making decisions of this type. MINUTES Page 3 Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 1981 7:00 P.M. Chairman Maher asked the Commission to express their opinion on whether apartment • development should be concentrated or dispersed. Commissioner Gardner said that he felt both concepts had good and bad points. He said that concentration allowed for efficient provision of services such as mass transit but that this also had the greatest impact on the area. He said that it would depend on the way the individual project was designed an integrated into the neighborhood. Chairman Maher said that he favored the dispersal of apartments. Commissioner Livingston said that he also favored dispersal:. Commissioner Behling favored dispersal as long as the city circulation pattern was not disrupted. Commissioner Gardner said that the location of apartment projects should be based on their design, size and compatibilty with the neighborhood and that, in this case no plan for the surrounding area had been presented. Commissioner Behling said that he did not feel it was the applicant's obligation to make plans for property surrounding his. He suggested that this was the job of the Commission. Commissioner Watson suggested that it was unfair for the city to ask the applicant to do extensive planning for the development of land which he does not own or control. • Commissioner Watson said that he felt both dispersal and concentration of apartments had good and bad points depending on size, location and access, as well as surrounding development. Commissioner Hazen said that she would like to see apartments concentrated on major arterial streets, but that the request before the Commission might be too large. Commissioner Sears said that if density in R-5 developments dropped to low, projects might become too spread out for effective provision of service. He suggested that apartments be concentrated on major streets. He added that he felt the recent action to deny a request to rezone portions of Brentwood from dingle family to duplex was a strong statement on the protection of Auburn Court. Mr. Ron Cruse showed the Commission a proposed plan for the development of the area. It included proposed land uses and circulation pattern. He also gave his opinions regarding the development of surrounding areas. He said that the overall density for the area would be lower than.. allowable. He said that, due to the rising cost of housing, it was becoming more important to provide multifamily housing and mixed development landuses. Mr. Cruse said that, although he had done planning for the surrounding area, the final decision on land use of these areas would rest with the City Council. Chairman Maher opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Jerry Miller, Auburn Court, spoke in opposition to the request. He said that he was afraid that the rezoning would establish a bad precedent in the area. He sug- • gested that R-4 or R-3 zoning would deter development of single family in the area adjacent to Auburn Court. He asked that the single family development in the area be completed before any land was zoned for apartments. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 1981 7:00 P.M. Page 4 Ms. Janet Davidson, Auburn Court, spoke in opposition to the request. She said • that she felt the request represented to great a portion of Southwest Parkway. Mr. Elmer Thompshon, Auburn Court, also spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. John Honea, Krenek Tap Road, spoke in opposition to the request. He pointed out that no buffer was now being shown between this property and the single family land on Krenek Tap. Mr. Cruse asked Mr. Miller why he had changed his opinion of the proposed plan. Mr. Miller said that his approval had been based on an assurance that all of the land on the north side of Southwest Parkway would remain R-1 and that the suggestion that some of the land along Southwest Parkway could be duplexes had caused him to change his mind. Chairman Maher pointed out that there was no way the Commission could ensure such a thing. Mr. Miller said that he realized this fact and asked that the rezoning of the subject tract to apartments be put off until more single family development had taken place in the area. Commissioner Wtason pointed out that, if the area developed R-I totally before any apartment zoning was granted, the single family residents at that time would object to the apartment zoning. • Following the close of debate, Chairman Maher ruled that a vote would be taken on the R-3 tract and the R-4 tract and that the tract shown as C-N would be considered part of the R-4 property. Commissioner Hazen moved that the Commission recommend approval of the rezoning of the R-3 tract. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Behling and approved with Commissioner Gardner voting against. Commissioner Hazen moved that the Commission recommend denial of the R-4 request. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gardner and was approved by the following vote: For: Chairman Maher, Commissioners Gardner, Hazen, Livingston Against: Commissioners Behling, Watson, Sears Chairman Maher said that the property could have been voted on as a single tract or request., but that he assumed this request would have failed. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4 -- Reconsideration of a request to rezone Lots 6 - 12 of the Meadowland Addition from District R-2 to District C-1. Mr. Mayo explained that the problems on the site plan had been taken care of by the project architect. He recommended approval of the rezoning on the condition that the • rezoning not take effect until the lots had been replatted as one lot. He said that this would prevent the commercial zoning of the small lots. Commissioner Hazen moved that the item be removed from the table. • MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 1981 7:00 P.M. Page 5 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Livingston and unanimously approved. Commissioner Watson moved that the Commission recommend approval of the rezoning with the recommendations of the city staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gardner and unanimously approved-with Com- missioner Sears absent. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5 -- Reconsideration of a parking lot plan for an expansion to the Ramada Inn. Commissioner Watson moved that the item be removed from the table. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sears and unanimously approved. Mr. Mayo explained that the plan had been revised by the architect, but that some of the revisions suggested by the P.R.C. had not been met. He suggested that end islands be provided in each row of the parking lot off of Meadowland and in every other row of the lot north of the Sands Motel. He pointed out that if these islands were not included, the parking rows would be dead-end and cars could have to back out onto Meadowland Street. Mr. Edward Maurer, projcet architect, said that he agreed with the recommendations of Mr. Mayo and that his design had been an attempt to get as many parking spaces as possible. Mr. Mayo explained that the parking lot on Meadowland would provide adequate spaces for the addition alone and that the parking lot north of the Sands Motel would pro- • vide the spaces necessary to bring the existing Ramada complex into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. He added that the changes recommended by the staff would still leave an adequate number of spaces. Commissioner Hazen asked if the Fire Department was satisfied with the plan. Fire Marshal Davis spoke and explained that while the fire access could only be taken to one side of the proposed tower, he felt that a fire at the complex could be fought adequately.. Commissioner Sears moved that the plan be approved with the changes recommended by the city staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Watson and unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6 -- Consideration of a preliminary plat - Resubdivision of a portion of Woodway Village Phase 1. Mr. Mayo pointed out that the developer had changed the 24 foot access easement to a private easement in order to solve the density problem. He also noted that the 35 foot wide lots were for duplexes. Commissioner Sears moved that the plat be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Behling and approved with Commissioner Gardner voting against. • MINUTES Page 6 Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 1981 7:00 P.M. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 7 -- Consideration of a final plat - Parkway Plaza Phase 7. Mr. Mayo explained that the property was being subdivided because T.G.&Y. had decided to purchase hteir own tract and that each business would now be buying its own property. Commissioner Hazen moved that the plat be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sears and unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8 -- Consideration of granting a site plan permit for the construction of a multifamily residential project to be located on O1 mpia Way. The application is in the name of Marcal, Inc. Mr. Mayo said that all of the recommendations of the P.R.C. had been met. He pointed out that the units would be condominium units and have their parking located under the units. He recommended approval of the project plan. Mr. John Schmidt, project architect, presented the proposed plan and answered questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Gardner asked if it would be possible to work out an arrangement to allow public access along the creek in order to allow access between this area and the Oaks Park. Mr. Schmidt said that this might be possible but that the topography of the land • at the bridge on University Oaks would make this difficult. Commissioner Sears moved that the plan be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hazen and unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 9 -- Consideration of a parking lot plan for a McDonald's to be located at the intersection of Texas Avenue and Sodthwest Parkwav. Mr. Mayo said that all of the recommendations of the P.R.C. had been met and he asked that the final location of the dumpster be left to the Director of Public Services. Commissioner Hazen asked if the applicant could use a smaller sign. Zoning Official Callaway said that the proposed sign was in compliance with the sign ordinance. Commissioner Watson moved that the plan be approved subject to dumpster location by the Director of Public Services. AGENDA ITEM N0. 10 -- Other business. Commissioner Behling asked that the City Attorney speak to the Commission on the problem of resubdivisions requiring the approval of other owners in the subdivision. • Mr. Mayo said that the staff had been discussing this question with the City Attorney and that there was disagreement concerning the issue. He said that there was now MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 1981 7:00 P.M. Page 7 • legislation before the State Legislature which would clear up the situation. He said that he would ask the City Attorney to speak to the Commission on the matter. Chairman Maher asked how the C-1, C-3 ordinance revision was progressing. Mr. Mayo said that he was still working with the City Attorney on the Ordinance, but that Mr. Denton's time had been taken up with litigation and he had been busy with the budget but that he should have a draft of the ordinance within the next few Commission meetings. AGENDA ITEM N0. 11 -- Adjourn. Commissioner Sears moved that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Watson and unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. • Attest Secretary APPROVED °i~~ri'y"l~.l.c. Chairman :7